how can that be in this patriarchical dominated world ?

Post ho ergo prompter hoc

other than that, none

I suspect the data are way more complex than that.

For example, does that apply in the hard sciences? My guess is not. Girls start out strong in the hard sciences, but fade as they age. Why is that? It does not appear to be because of ability.

Now this was 27 years ago, but when I was in college and having trouble in engineering at one point, my advisor told me to buck the fuck up and work harder. One of my best friends (a woman) also went to the same advisor for help,and was told that maybe she should transfer to a "more suitable" major. I told her to forget that bullshit. She graduated with a higher GPA than I did.

Even today, men dominate the sciences. Perhaps we know why.

So let's not get all MRA in here shall we?

more women than men give up. if more men than women gave up there would be more women in sciences.
more suitable may mean more suitable to your abilities not just sexist crap AND yea the article said it not me so If there is any mra angle in it take it up with the author of the study

Why do you think women give up more despite doing as well (or better) than men? Because they hear from sexist asshats all their life about his girls aren't suitable for science.

Bullshit.

Like I said, my female friend had a BETTER GPA than me, and graduated higher in our class. She was BETTER than me, and still told to maybe think about giving up. While I was told to buck the fuck up and work harder.

This is just complete bullshit.

when i was in pre-med i failed calc almost immidiately, i dropped the class then tried it again and failed it miserably. my counselor said that i should get help (buck the fuck up and try narder ) or consider another major. it wasnt b/c she was a sexist asshat she felt she was trying to help

There is still a wage gap; very few women are running companies. Women are underrepresented in many fields, like technology (which is mostly a nerdy boys' club in which sexual harassment is the rule, not the exception).

Boys simply do not have to get good grades or even university degrees in order to succeed. For girls, it is a MUST.

If you think it's due primarily to discrimination, you don't have much if any empirical data to back that up and quite a bit working against it.

The fact that women are typically expected to take on the majority of unpaid caretaking roles, that their biological capacity to bear and nurse children is insufficiently accommodated in the workforce (because according to the Supreme Court, men can lactate, etc.), and that men still do not take up their share of domestic duties, have nothing to do with discrimination and have no impact whatsoever on the career aspirations or accomplishments of women.

In addition, the plethora of studies showing that women in the workplace are disproportionately penalized for speaking up/not speaking up/being too feminine/being too masculine/being too aggressive/being too passive/being cold/being too emotional/etc. etc. etc., and are routinely seen as less capable than their male counterparts, have nothing whatsoever to do with sexist discrimination.

Because it's literally not discrimination unless your boss says "I hate your vagina, so I'm not going to give you a raise."

When you balance the number of extra hours men work in employment with the number of extra hours women spend with domestic duties, the numbers come out pretty much the same.
http://www.bls.gov/tus/

Moreover, you're moving the goalposts. Your original assertion was that the gender wage gap has nothing to do with gender discrimination. I pointed out several ways that it does, both implicitly and explicitly. Pointing out that there may be some other imbalance in terms of gender work expectations does not refute my response to your point. In fact it undergirds it. Women are expected to work more for free in the home. Men are expected to work more, for pay, in the workforce. Thus, based on your own assertions, the gender wage gap is by default partially a result of different expectations, e.g. discrimination, based on gender.

I have no idea what could possibly go wrong with that arrangement.

http://speakoutloud.net/intimate-partner-abuse/economic-abuse

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123456/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673604160984

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00004.x/abstract;jsessionid=B8830EA0AD35D243902F94D5FD3CF6AC.f01t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+7th+March+from+10%3A00-13%3A00+GMT+%2805%3A00-08%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

(before you point out that two of these articles do not focus on the United States: the principle under investigation is that household earnings are all fine and dandy, with no disproportionate consequences based on who actually brings home the bacon).

And perhaps the most important and comprehensive study of the lot to this effect: http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/9/1/51.short

AND spend meaningful time with their families, regardless of gender, and accepting that replacement-level childbearing/rearing are critical functions in society that should be accommodated in our work lives such that no one is unfairly burdened either way.

And such that women aren't potentially stuck in abusive relationships with no financial means to escape.

That could be one way of prioritizing things...just a thought.

So I'm all for the effort, but I'm not really sure how you get there when people choose such arrangements themselves. Furthermore many couples chose an arrangement where one spouse is the primary breadwinner and the other is the primary caretaker of the children. Trying to balance that equally in many households just isn't going to work.

However, you have followed it up with what I consider to be a strawman argument. No serious feminist or policy expert that I know of argues that each individual couple should be forced to split every single aspect of work down the middle. The goal is to ensure that ALL necessary work to keep our society functioning is acknowledged and compensated, and that no individual person is deprived of the full right to self-actualization and self-sufficiency, on his or her own terms and based on his or her own individual attributes.

Again, your initial point was that gender discrimination was not a factor in the gender wage gap. I have made a case challenging that assertion, and challenging furthermore that it has no negative consequences for women. I have provided logical challenges towards the first point, as well as referenced evidence towards the second point. I am happy to furnish more evidence towards either of those two, since as a social scientist by training I am quite confident that I am on firm evidentiary ground.

You have yet to back up your own initial claim, which does indeed go against the findings of most reputable social scientists. In fact, your own logical exercises to refute my points betray that initial claim. Do you continue to stand by it? Do you maintain that the gender pay gap has nothing whatsoever to do with gender discrimination?

And a point of order here. I'm not making that argument. You are.

I simply questioned how you get from here to there.

And you are misrepresenting the AAUW study you referenced. The 7% unexplained difference was *within a year of graduating.* Ten years down the road, the unexplained difference in pay had increased to 12% of the total difference.

You also ignored the evidence backing up my initial refutation, that even the *explained differences* are a result of larger cultural disparities between women and men. For example, the AAUW publication points out that choice to become a parent has different effects on men's and women's earnings--pushing women's earnings down while in some cases being correlated with an increase in men's pay.

You may point out that this is because women take time off from work to accommodate pregnancy and child-rearing. But this is precisely the problem. In the first place, workplaces are NOT required to fully accommodate the physical needs of women that go along with pregnancy and lactation. This recent case is one prime example of the truly nonexistent protections for mothers trying to maintain a career: https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/firing-mom-because-shes-breastfeeding-sex-discrimination.

According to the highest legal authority in the land, Angela Ames chose to leave her job to attend to her motherly duties. Her forced resignation (dictated by the boss who told her she needed to be at home with her babies) is not "unexplained" and does not fall into the formal category of potential discrimination. This is obviously preposterous. Similar refusals to accommodate pregnant/new mothers on the job, a de facto discrimination which contributes to the wage gap, are seen in the cases of Heather Myers and Wal-Mart, as well as Peggy Young and UPS.

The point of referring to these individual cases is that they reveal a lack of legal protection, particularly in the case of Ames, where even the Supreme Court ruled that a shocking case of sex discrimination was legally permissible. For a dataset, you could start with the Harvard Business Review's recent study of MBA grads, which points to multiple specific ways that women are *pushed out* of their careers, as opposed to *opting out.* https://hbr.org/2014/12/rethink-what-you-know-about-high-achieving-women

These are Harvard MBA's--highly ambitious, capable women who clearly have career goals in mind, and who clearly indicate that those goals are thwarted by the failure to accommodate motherhood.

Again, replacement levels of procreation are necessary for society to continue, and both men and women play a role in the decision to have children. While the biological consequences of that decision are inherently different, the economic consequences should not be. Better alternatives already exist in many European countries.

It means nothing to me.

Firing or pushing women out of jobs over the inevitable physical consequences of pregnancy and nursing has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. Also, pointing out actual, specific shortcomings of a methodology, with references and examples, is a less effective debate tactic than vaguely referring to unspecified flaws in the same methodology. And words are bad. Proceed to have the last one, as it seems important to you.

Having read over the "discussion" you've had, culminating in this bon mot, I must say "well done!" As a fascinated onlooker, I find your posts exemplary, while the major's are rather minor.

So whatever their solution is, it's not having very much effect.

I think what you are talking about isn't "discrimination" by how most people define it. It's more about gender roles and stereotypes. This is more of a social psychology problem.

And how exactly are corporations supposed to accommodate motherhood? No matter what they do won't change the fact that most fathers don't alter their work schedules and availability the way mothers do after a child is born. So men begin to rack up more work experience/qualifications and advance their careers quicker. I'm not quite sure how you go about fixing that issue. The simple reality is that over a lifetime, men work more hours than women. Therefore even with equal pay for equal work, a man will still make more money in his lifetime.

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

When an employer refuses to accommodate your physical need to express milk, and instead hands you a pen to write your own resignation letter while telling you that "you should be at home with your babies," that seems like a pretty clear case of sex discrimination--which our Supreme Court found acceptable.

I don't intend to claim that Europe or any other society has discovered a perfect solution to the problem of inadequate compensation for women's work. You are correct that it ties very deeply into gender roles and stereotypes, and to some degree the biological division of reproductive labor, and probably will take generations to fully tackle. I do think that major components to a solution involve a) acknowledging that it is a problem that much of the critical social roles women fulfill are not compensated, and that this puts women at a disadvantage in several serious, measurable respects; b) that work needs to be valued both culturally and economically; c) providing opportunities for flexibility to people of all genders (non-gender binary inclusive), so that the choices men and women make are really their choices. This may not fully eliminate the wage gap, and it may not fully result in men getting to spend the same amount of time with their families that women do, but at least people will have options to structure their lives on their own terms--and women won't be at a disadvantage when it comes to money and power differentials.

Child-rearing is certainly a difficult and thankless job...no one is saying it isn't. But are you suggesting someone should be paying women (beyond normal typical post-birth time) who take time off of work to do it? Who do you want to write that check? A company? The government? And for how long? 1 year? 10 years? 18 years? Life?

Unless maybe I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting...

In Europe they do have paid maternity leave in most countries for a little while. But eventually that woman is expected to return to her full-time duties at work and then that maternity pay ends regardless who continues to raise the child. It doesn't go on more than maybe 3-6 months or so.
I don't think that would necessarily help women to have extended paid maternity leave. It would only reinforce the current gender stereotypes we are dealing with today. And men still are able to continue their careers uninterrupted. Companies will then definitely continue to view men as way better candidates for jobs.

And the specifics of a more just and fair arrangement across society would require the input from expert sociologists, economists, policy makers, etc., who are far more knowledgeable and equipped to develop effective strategies. But the bottom line is that core social needs should not be subsidized by uncompensated labor, disproportionately women's labor (although there are increasing numbers of men carrying out those duties as well, a trend I think should be encouraged). Caretaking needs to be acknowledged for the critical service that it is, and those who take on that role should not be penalized for it.

It's taking off in more countries as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/jul/19/norway-dads-peternity-leave-chemin

Norway, the fatherland
Paternity leave law helps to create more equal households

don't bust the bubble.

The nepotism at my last job was crazy regardless of gender...


Hey, your sister need a job? She turned on a computer once....She is HIRED (literally)

The overall findings weren't about girls getting unfairly rewarded in school. ONE finding suggested that girls get higher marks with similar ability, which the researchers speculate is tied to girls generally being less trouble in class.

Other findings were that although girls scored higher on math and science testing than boys, boys pursue technical careers four times as frequently.

Hardly a blow against the notion of patriarchy.

Less and less men are going to college. More and more boys are dropping out of school, especially minority boys. Grades are dropping.

But politicians don't really care much about this. Instead, they will focus on the lack of women in STEM in hopes of getting more of the female vote.

It is not a zero-sum game. The fact that girls get better grades does not negate the pervasive misogyny of our society. Women get jobs, then still do most if the housework and card of the kids. Women's work, however you define that, still pays less.

I remember reading that people polled somewhere, when asked whether they would prefer to make $100,000 per year in a world where everyone else made the same, or $50,000 a year when everyone else made $25,000, overwhelmingly took the $50k.

It's some kind of reptile-brain desire for power, I think. Instead of embracing enlightened self-interest and recognizing that a better situation for others helps everyone, some people see any increase in equality as diluting their own advantage, and thus lessening their power.

Conservatives really live in that head-space. Religious equality becomes "the war on Christmas." Pointing out racial inequality becomes "playing the race card." Calls for gender equality become "man hating."

We've got to get past that kind of primitive knee-jerk tribalism somehow, but it doesn't seem to be going very well.

to support a wife and kids or GF. No they don't. Women work too these days. Maybe they need double the salary for day care, dudes.

I remember my boss hiring a young guy and paying him almost as much as me- his boss with +10 years experience- he told me it was because he needed money for dating- maybe an engagement ring soom! And that I should be getting all those things from men and it would all even out. LOL.

Sounds like some people here- if we just pretend it's 1950, and I'm not paying my own rent, it all works out. Most of the married couples I know, the woman makes more salary and still ends up doing 2/3 of the work at home.

they have a greater chance of survival hording. it is like the say some eat fast, cause of initially limited resources. we have changed this as things become more plentiful.

i think it would be more that effect.

... than individuals skulking in the forest all alone. I have read that some animals (wolverines?) will urinate on a carcass they can't finish eating to prevent others from getting the benefit.

We can probably do better for each other than wolverines. Even though wolverines are kind of cool.

this was fun... interesting.

edit to add, a post i made yesterday on FB was... a livable wage, creates money spent, helping the corps.... a given. obvious. and we ignore that.

It's still a problem that a larger share of men are not going to college than 18 years ago, especially when it's more important than ever, in the economy, to have post high school education. That needs to be looked at and addressed.

For posting facts.

It's not a competition. Too bad some people see it that way.

It's just for many people it seems to be the ONLY problem they care to talk about.

It seems to me like we are saying it is OK for a degree program to be flooded with women, but wrong and sexist if it is flooded by men.

There is this major push to get more women to take STEM majors, which is fine. But where is the push for men to take degrees that are 70 or 80% dominated by women? Education majors for example. There are less and less male teachers today in public education.
http://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-desperate-more-male-elementary-school-teachers-191700198.html;_ylt=AwrBTzeF0PhUT8MAA7lXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZHZ0NmFmBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDVklQNTQ4XzEEc2VjA3Ny

One of the reasons women choose other majors and careers is because of the discrimination and the male-dominatedness of science and engineering.

Males really are often stupid, and I should know, I am one.

only there were a men's rights group that would study this problem to find out why. Then do something about it. Like set up programs/go into schools to let young men know they too can go to college. Of course this would take dedication and decades of work to achieve.

during the bushco years of "we dont need no stinkin' education".

they are huge readers. older beyond huge reader and the stereotypes his fellow peers and adult males around him demanded of him had me battling his right to be smart and interested in academics while still fitting the boy mode. rough time in the panhandle of texas, during that time, in middle school, with the promotion of illiteracy for our guys from the repugs.

there are mens groups that do put in the time and effort with the boys, incredibly it is not the MRA's. boys are not on their agenda, or boys education or anything else. these groups just are not "masculine" (or conservative) enough for the MRA types.

one of my favorite books my son read about 8, that i bought for me to read and he commendeered and read as he went thru his stages is 'real boys' by dr william pollack

bothers men.

If men aren't putting in the same effort, it's because they became complacent because less was required of them to become the biggest earners for so many years.

"The study also has some nuggets about the influences that shape how well pupils do at school. Girls do much more homework than boys and this has a direct impact on results.

Boys are much more likely to spend long hours playing on computer games and this can have a direct impact on the likelihood of doing homework."

Girls are just being handed everything on a silver platter like the spoiled brats we are. We never have to do anything except flip our hair and the world falls into place for us. We walk down velvety carpeted roads littered with rose petals and the crushed dreams of men who spent every dime they had trying to impress us so they could have two minutes at night once a week with us. We control the world with our all powerful vaginas. Don't you know that by now?

<-----added because this entire thread is so upside down and backasswards that the smiley is needed.

I'm sure the explanation is coming for that.

It is the way we flip our hair and walk around with our bosoms under our shirts.

thread, see see.... so unfair.

PATRIACHY... ya ya, thats it.

well ya. right answer. exactly. what we have been talking about forever. privilege and entitlement create an atmosphere that girls success, by following rule, being responsible, making good choices, and doing the work.... results in the girls being "given" it.

from what i am reading, this is not something for men to be holding up as evidence that there is no patriarchy.

to fuggin' funny

They refuse to see the part of the article that talks about how the girls are working for it and doing what they need to do to achieve that success. They still remind me of the 9 year old boys who have the "boys only" clubhouse out in the woods somewhere where they complain about girls. They never grew up.

Why do girls get better grades, worse standardized test scores and are 50% more likely to go to college?
- because they're better learners, tests are sexist, and boys are lazy and entitled.
Teachers and public sentiment have a bias toward thinking that girls are better students.
- Not true! Patriarchy! Male privilege!

Excellent article. Thanks.

Saw that on a t-shirt. Can't say I disagree, really...

And it proves sexism was never justified.

LOL, the girls are doing better, so it must be because school systems are rewarding them more? WTF? Since when? We all know of the studies where the boys get favorable treatment.

What greater rewards? Higher grades? Similar ability does not mean that the person is going to use that ability, and how do you know that? I used to hate it when people claimed their grades were lower because they did not choose to study. They were saying "I'm as smart as you are, don't think you are smarter or deserve any credit for working and studying - if I chose to study, I'd do just as well." So I was not supposed to be proud of my grades or consider myself any smarter than they.

LOL, this is from the article:

A boy and a girl may have similar abilities, but if her performance is at a higher level (e.g., getting her homework done) she EARNS higher grades. This is not a matter of bias.

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Just when I feel that teh woman's are dominating my poor pathetic white guy life, you post something that gives me hope that someday we will return and get back what is rightfully ours.

White men power forever!

Well played.

raising two boys. my job was to get educated on the subject of education. and i did. not to mention observe and participate in the process for the best results for my boys.

i finally read the pithy article.

first, the title alone, though not baring out what was in the report, was bullshit. there was no clever girl? nor stupid boy!

that had nothing to do with what was actually in the article.

second, there was also very little tangible in the article. we basically are left with, both in article statement in conclusion and thru out the article as a whole.... not a lot of difference in gender so knock the damn stereotypes off. !!!!

which is what us feminists have been saying every damn day for the last three years, as men point the finger at us and say a whole lot of nasty shit.

so.... you are welcome for the last 3 yrs having my time devoted not only to our girls, but equally our boys, repeatedly saying this shit, hoping maybe there would be a little, duh.... this is so fuggin obvious, now where do we go from here.

the ONLY part you guys may jump up and down with a gotcha is:

They were/are both clever and at time both stupid (though I've never called the stupid). Never intellectually stupid, they've made dumb/stupid decisions. As all young people do.

I think all PEOPLE have strengths and weaknesses. I'm not going to read this article because I don't like pitting men against women or vice versa.

Both my kids were comparable in school, they've both been to college, my daughter has her masters and son is in his final semester for his. My daughters' is in finance and so is my sons. Go figure...