<p>“That has nothing to do with sexism, and neither does women being beat by men more than vice versa, because men “beat” more in general - both men AND women!”</p>
<p>Beating the opposite sex is sexist, beating the same sex isn’t.</p>
<p><em>doesn’t bother waiting for the lightbulb</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is absolutely true. And, even if you are going to argue that women only earn 3.4 of what men do, take some time and correct for the heteroskedasticity. It makes a huge difference in data analysis.</p>
<p>Darko, I had evidence. You just chose to ignore it. And it’s pretty rude to call someone “■■■■■■■■” simply because they don’t agree.</p>
<p>Actually, women STILL get paid less than men, but now: </p>
<p>Women earned 59% of the wages men earned in 1963; in 2005 they earned 81% of men’s wages. Women under 25 working full-time earned 93.2% of men’s salaries compared to those 25 and older, who earned 79.4% of what men made.
Definite improvement, but there should be no gap.</p>
<p>I don’t see how some people here can imply that sexism, essentially, does not exist. Until men and women are 50/50 in every job market and are paid the same, then sexism will exist. Reverse sexism exists, too.</p>
<p>Stargazerlilies- That court case is one example. Would you like me to send you more?
More opportunities in the workforce, mainly.</p>
<p>Also, back when the Constitution was first drafted in 1789, “people” meant “rich, white men.”
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment finally gave mention to African-American men.</p>
<p>Also, it doesn’t say “people” most of the time. It says “men.”</p>
<p>And I know that can mean both sexes in some situations, but since it was written so long ago when women were included in nothing, it really did mean just men.</p>
<p>In addition, to the person talking about that creepy professor: That sucks and it’s wrong, but there’s also plenty of other male and female professors/teachers geared toward one sex. It’s wrong and unfortunate in any case, but I don’t think I can use that as an example of sexism toward women, since both sexes are victims of grade discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There should be no gap, based on the job, and the output from the job. For example, if your job was based on something that was physically demanding (I can’t think of an exact example, but think of carrying heavy objects or something), it makes sense that people who provide more output will be paid more. Generally, men have more muscle mass, and can do that type of work better (hate to break it to you guys; there are biological differences between the sexes), so why should a female receive a free “premium” for not providing the same output?</p>
<p>I’m sure examples exist of the opposite (women being paid more in some jobs than their male counterparts, because they work more efficiently) as well.</p>
<p>It is just ignorant to assume that men and women should be paid equally solely because they have the same job. They should be paid the same if they do the same job, have the same work experience and education, and provide the same output. What most people don’t understand is the latter part.</p>
<p>Also (since I can’t see the study you got your numbers from), how is the gender-wage gap calculated? Because, if it is solely based on the average income of each female, to that of males, there is the very large issue of heteroskedasticity you have to get around. Even though more women go to college than men, much more liberal arts/humanities majors are women than natural sciences and engineering. Guess which jobs pay more? To really argue about the gender-wage gap, you need to be able to dissect the data really well.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that there is no gender-wage gap or anything; I’m jsut saying that it’s not enough to stick out one percentage and call it a day.</p>
<p>“You’re saying that because a president election for a woman is important, women are not equal? That makes perfect sense!”</p>
<p>I’m saying that it’s such a big deal, BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENS. And why does it never happen? Because most women are smart enough to know that it’s slim to none they’ll get elected. Why do you think Hillary gave up?</p>
<p>I can’t tell you how many people came up to me and said: “She is so unqualified.” --Both women and men.
When asked why, they would simply say, “She’s overbearing and bossy. She probably also couldn’t handle things when she has her period.” Any man in her position that did the same things would be considered a strong leader. And the last sentence is completely sexist.</p>
<p>And if you say to me once more to “not use anecdotes,” then every personal story of a male poster here is void. Because most of you guys have used an anecdote.</p>
<p>“I just didn’t read it because it’s you’re opinion with nothing factual.”</p>
<p>It’s you are opinion? Don’t insult me when you cannot use proper grammar.</p>
<p>
Wow, you’ve got to be shιttin’ me.</p>
<p>When a man beats another man, it isn’t sexist.</p>
<p>But when a man beats a woman, it is INHERENTLY sexist? Really? There’s no way a man could beat a woman for some reason other than sexism? REALLY?</p>
<p>My God, you’re dense.</p>
<p>How much of the difference in average pay between men and women over 25 can be attributed to women taking a few years off to nurture children? A break in employment means less seniority and less experience, thus less money. Even though all women do not do this, some do and that effects the average</p>
<p>A twenty percent gap, divided by 4 years to nurture, works out to 7.5% for each year away from the wage paying job.This is about the annual inflation raise plus one promotion for very many jobs.</p>
<p>How do childless women ,or women who do not take time off, fare as demographic groups regarding wages? I bet it is close to the smaller under 25 gap.</p>
<p>That being said I see no reason why my D hould start her working career 6.8% behind her brother. Perhaps the gap is due to anticipating a break in employment. This would be discriminatory as it projects a group characteristic onto an individual.</p>
<p>How would a family woman feel if her husband were paid the same as a woman, or anyone, who had worked four or five less years?</p>
<p>Myrmidon, I understand your point. I believe the took the average wages from corporate jobs, rather than jobs with any particular physical exertion.</p>
<p>[The</a> Wage Gap: A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act — Infoplease.com](<a href=“http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html]The”>The Wage Gap: A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act)</p>
<p>That’s the link, but I could find another one, if you wish.</p>
<p>It also states: “Women currently make approximately 80 cents for every dollar that men earn.”</p>
<p>I understand that more output should equal more pay, and I agree, but I can’t imagine that this is the reason for less pay in every situation. </p>
<p>Can you think of a job in which a woman is paid more for increased output?</p>
<p>BigG, I can see this as well. However, not every woman making less than a man takes off for children, so I can’t see that as being a huge attribution or anything.</p>
<p>Someone has yet to show me a scientific journal confirming any pay gap. If anything, real wages for women are rising while real wages for men are falling.</p>
<p>That one “website” (quite the reputable and peer-reviewed publication) does not even tell you from what source it ripped off its figures, or how that source calculated and came up with those figures. It just asserts them.</p>
<p>In 1996, actually, following Bill Clinton’s centrist policies on NAFTA and welfare reform, American women actually earned $1.15 to every $1.00 earned by men in similar jobs.</p>
<p>Listen, you have to take into account experience as well as ability (which can be highly subjective in some jobs) as well as personal qualities across very similar jobs. In fact many companies are required to pay everyone of a certain “rank” the same for fear of such lawsuits. The obvious reasons the “pay gap” appears to exist is because more men are CEOs, entrepreneurs, lawyers, or doctors while there are probably significantly more women who stay at home then men that do. However, this is not inherent “sexism” in our society - it is simply self-selection.</p>
<p>But anyway, where in the article does it mention the basic fact that men pay $0.50 of their dollar on dates, drinks, rings, and gifts to women in order to get into their pants?</p>
<p>blair91,</p>
<p>The numbers being discussed are averages for demographic groups. Not every woman takes time off for children but enough do to depress the average for all women at least some. </p>
<p>That is why I would like to see data for women who do not take time off for children broken out as a separate group.</p>
<p>Data on earnings by seniority as opposed to age would be interesting. Bear in mind that a woman who takes 5 years off for family is going to spend five years less in the workforce and this will truncate her career.</p>
<p>The real question is ; Does a 45 year old female engineer who took five years off in her twenties to have a family make as much as a 40 year old male of equivalent qualifications? I suspect not but I have seen no hard data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No seriously, don’t use anymore anecdotes, they are void. Like other posters have said, any personal stories are speculation and subjective.</p>
<p>Once again, just because it’s a big deal that Hillary Clinton was a runner up for the election, just because people said she was unqualified, just because women aren’t frequently elected as president…read this carefully…has NOTHING to do with equality.</p>
<p>You’re argument is so bad that <em>you’re</em> going to result to grammar insults, nice one. By the way that wasn’t intended as an insult.</p>
<p>How can reverse-sexism and reverse-racism exist? That would make it seem like women can’t be sexist, only reverse-sexist against men. This sounds like men are the ones that are sexist in the first place. That word in itself is sexist.</p>
<p>Women are sexist towards men all the time.</p>
<p>Hell, tune into Dr. Phil or Oprah or the View or whatever the hell is on Daytime TV these days.</p>
<p>Stop playing victim and go do something with your life.</p>
<p>If women couldn’t be seen as strong leaders they wouldn’t have been elected in several other democracies. Those women are not the whiny type though, they behave like strong men instead.</p>
<p>Women however are not taught to be strong when they are young, every male is taught to deal with his problems himself while females are taught to reach out to their surroundings. So when a woman feel that she have no one to help her she feels oppressed, while a man who feels that he have no one against him is perfectly fine. </p>
<p>(generalisations of course, do not apply to every man or woman)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So…now sexism is defined as any harmful action toward women (by men of course) no matter what the intent?</p>
<p>So… If a man robs another man, it’s not sexist.
BUT… if he takes a woman’s purse, it IS sexist?
A cars salesman knowlingly sells a lemon to a man… he is a jerk. He lies about the milage to a woman and he’s sexist?</p>
<p>Your ignorance is showing again.</p>
<p>This is what stereotypical “feminists” do. They perceive anything and everything as “sexism” (which lessens actual cases of sexism) and use tortured logic to justify their inane statements like “the system is slanted against women!”. No objective proof though - that’s what emotional (and factually inaccurate) statements like “1 in 3 women are raped” or “men make 25cents more per dollar than women!” are for.</p>
<p>Please change your username - you in no way deserve to claim to be logical.</p>
<p>“In 1996, actually, following Bill Clinton’s centrist policies on NAFTA and welfare reform, American women actually earned $1.15 to every $1.00 earned by men in similar jobs.”</p>
<p>I have found no evidence of this and have also never heard of it. Where can I find it on the internet? Seems interesting.</p>
<p>I still believe there’s no doubt that sexism exists, for both men and women. Saying that sexism toward women is gone, simply because they have ALMOST every right as a man is like saying that racism is gone, simply because African-Americans and other races now have the same rights as Caucasian people.</p>
<p>No one says that racism no longer exists, so why do some people on here claim that sexism doesn’t exist?</p>
<p>[How</a> Large is the Gap in Salaries of Male and Female Engineers?](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99352.htm]How”>How Large is the Gap in Salaries of Male and Female Engineers?)</p>
<p>^A legit website, IMO, as citations are included from the Department of Labor.</p>
<p>“Recent studies have found that in the United States, women earn between 71-74 cents for every dollar earned by men.”</p>
<p>Darko, I think it’s time I start to ignore you. You’re not friendly, polite or mature in your refutations.</p>
<p>Friendliness is not required to win an argument my dear.</p>
<p>This thread is 38 pages long, and what have we learned? </p>
<p>That ya’ll will never agree. You will never make the other person see the issue through your perspective. That this thread is a waste of time.</p>