In fact, you might be having bad times. While they’re having good times. Doing things you don’t understand.
And men have a special relationship with money that women just don’t get…
Repealing the [Wisconsin equal pay] law was a no-brainer for state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R), who led the effort because of his belief that pay discrimination is a myth driven by liberal women’s groups. Ignoring multiple studies showing that the pay gap exists, Grothman blamed females for prioritizing childrearing and homemaking instead of money, saying, “Money is more important for men,” The Daily Beast reports:
Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers.
Talk about your Bad Choices. The Senator goes on…
You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”
Nothing about these guys working harder than women, I notice.
I figured out the answer to this ‘breadwinner’ thing long ago. When I work for a discount, due to being female, I save money for my boss– who I don’t love, and lose money for my husband, who I do love. Think about it. Where is the evidence that bosses trickle money down on families after they wring every drop out of the labor market by selectively underpaying workers through ‘divide and conquer’?
Senators have careers. Most of us have jobs. The Beast says that wage inequality is worse in Wisconsin than other states. Are the women more womanly there? Is it a mystery? Not necessarily.
Today’s 21st Century social scientists can actually sort out the difference between wage loss due to taking time out for family, and wage loss due to being paid less for the same job. And we don’t have to get lost in an emotional, un-winnable argument about whether the boss is prejudice against women. It’s in the numbers. Clean, masculine numbers, even.
Republicans like to talk about an opportunity society, but when it comes to remedies for inequality they won’t stand by the worker, woman or man.
Kmareka.com 
“social scientists can actually sort out the difference between wage loss due to taking time out for family, and wage loss due to being paid less for the same job. And we don’t have to get lost in an emotional, un-winnable argument about whether the boss is prejudice against women. It’s in the numbers.”
You can measure the numbers that way, but it doesn’t take into account the ‘risk’ that business owners assume by hiring, training, and promoting women in their childbearing years. Unfair as it might be, having a professional employee leave for months on end several times during their tenure with no legal recourse is expensive, and businesses are really good at pricing risk into their wages.
Also, equal pay laws create a strange incentive for larger businesses to avoid promoting women into positions that are above entry-level. If you ‘lose’ a floor-worker for a few months, getting a temp is easy and cheap. If you lose a manager, it can be fiscally devastating.
Also, ‘working harder’ isn’t all there is to it… I could make an argument that on the aggregate, men might have more ‘utility’ in many common workplaces, utility that creates value. If you own a small manufacturing business and can only hire one person, won’t you hire the person who can manufacture AND lift 100lb boxes in the loading bay? That’s a scenario I’ve actually seen in real life.
clearly there’s an incentive to hire old women. Of course, nurses lift people all the time, and most people weigh over 100# and most nurses are women.
Well I could make an argument that on the aggregate, women might have more utility in many other common workplaces and that *that* utility can create value. Not many workplaces require lifting anymore. And I’ve never met the guy who can lift 100 lbs. Very selective argument. And the “lose someone for a few months” argument is a red herring, precisely because men have a responsibility to step up and take PATERNAL LEAVE just as much as women take maternal leave. That way, women managers could go to work while their husbands took care of the kids. This has to start happening more often, or we’re all going to have even fewer kids than we have now. Now that humans are an endangered species, but some people have parental instincts and it’s a shame when you bludgeon them out.
“women might have more utility in many other common workplaces and that *that* utility can create value.”
True, and I think we’re seeing that women moving towards being the majorities in fields that are more ‘cerebral’ in nature, including ‘office work’.
“Not many workplaces require lifting anymore. And I’ve never met the guy who can lift 100 lbs.”
America is the world’s leading manufacturer. Everything man-made (no pun intended) that you’ve ever seen has probably been on a loading dock at one time or another. I’ve worked in technology my whole life, and I can’t remember a job that I didn’t have to do heavy-duty lifting at one time or another. Who stacks the boxes of printer paper around your office?
“men have a responsibility to step up and take PATERNAL LEAVE just as much as women take maternal leave. That way, women managers could go to work while their husbands took care of the kids.”
I’m sorry, I have absolutely no interest in being at home doing infant care. My partner is considering dropping out of the workforce to be a stay-at-home mom. It’s not my responsibility to take time off from work so I can make less AND be a worse parent than my partner. This reminds me a lot of the “you have to use ALL your vacation so you don;t make the rest of us look bad” mentality I’ve heard in some offices.
Well, it’s quite simple. The more men act and think like you, the fewer children we will have. Period. Your choice. Fewer women are like your partner. One strongly hopes fewer men are like you. If not: no kids.
this is all going in a strange direction considering that women are now working in all occupations. we don’t think it’s strange if a woman is a surgeon, police officer or electrician– we see this in daily life.
the question is– systematic underpayment of women for the same work. ‘systematic’ means a collusion among employers to underpay, so that changing jobs is no remedy.
when there is a legacy of discrimination, the collusion doesn’t have to be overt. It may not be easy to see except in population studies, because bosses can almost always cover up their individual discriminatory practices. ever been shorted on your paycheck? gender is only one opportunity for saving a few bucks at worker’s expense.
I posted this because Sen. Grothman was being so ridiculous, but now I see that he was reviving the gender wars to distract us all from worker’s rights.
“systematic underpayment of women for the same work. ‘systematic’ means a collusion among employers to underpay…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
The wikipedia article on this has the info that I want to throw in… While the pay gap for overall ‘full-time work’ is 77 cents to the dollar, that figure only takes ‘all full-time workers’ and ‘all pay’; it does not factor in the positions people are working, their seniority, or the actual number of hours people spend at work. Once you correct for some of those things, the pay gap drops to single-digits.
I really don’t think there’s ‘collusion by a male-dominated society to pay women less’. Sure, there’s discrimination, but the actual pay gap is probably caused by a small number of ‘bad eggs’ who are still sticking to their old beliefs that men should be breadwinners.
Yes. Gender issues become class issues. They often are indistinguishable.
As for who stays home to mind any offspring “because they make less money, after all” – this is the perfect excuse to justify and perpetuate a harmful status quo for women, who will continue to be used like pack animals and cheap labour as long as it’s the most “expedient” thing.
“mansplaining”
Wow. I’m floored. I wonder how you’d respond if I used a similar term used to describe things women say? Something like ‘b*tch-blather’.
“Once the men are in the room, they should remember to shut up and listen”
And again. Perhaps we can change one word in there and see if your statement belongs in a polite discussion:
‘Once the women are in the room, they should remember to shut up and listen’
Here I am looking up statistics and trying to explain WHY the gap exists, and you’re tossing-out blatantly offensive language. I think we can see who the sexist person in the room is.
So while you go on a rant about my patriarchal sexism, you should know that I’m changing my work schedule so I can be home for infant care one or two days a week. What I’m saying is that while I am doing it, I (and most of my soon-to-be-parent male friends) don’t really WANT to spend lots of time with a newborn, the overall sentiment on my female friends’ side is that they WANT to be home with their babies. I LIKE working late, I LIKE being at the office, and I’m not really that into babies (I love kids, but babies aren’t my bag). That’s a sentiment I think you’ll find more (not ‘exclusively’, but ‘more’) among males, probably for reasons that go back far before we had words to argue with.
You never met a guy who could lift 100 lbs.?Are you serious?
I was never a weightlifter and I had jobs in the service where I was lifting more than that all day.Nowadays due to some bad medical problems I’m limited to under 15 pounds-what a bummer!
You’re really out there in the ether on this one.
FWIW Dominique my wife is 4’9″ tall and when she was 18 and weighed 92 lbs she could deadlift 165.Her brother could bench press about 500 lbs,Get a life.
Dominique has a life. She’s a writer.
I think she can defend her own position then-what she said was ridiculous and really took away ffrom whatever validity her argument had.
Ad hominem attacks are for those who have no other way of expressing themselves.
It always surprises me when non-feminists bother to invade our spaces. Maude knows I never bother crashing MRA sites, personally.
Do you think they do this to harass us and derail our conversations? Because, honestly, it isn’t working. I’m not being “converted” here.
I would also add that, within our own spaces, women need to talk to each other before we allow men into the room.
Once the men are in the room, they should remember to shut up and listen, instead of lecturing and mansplaining – something they can do absolutely everywhere else, need I remind you all, lest I be accused of anything. They just shouldn’t be doing it in places like this.
I’ve been in this ‘room’for awhile Dominique-I don’t talk to the wmen here in a patronizing way-if I think anyone here,male or female is full of crap I say so and they some right back at me.
You sound very hateful towards men-maybe you have some rationalization for it,but I really don’t care what that is all about.I don’t know you and never did a damn thing to you so go piss off.
In case you haven’t noticed there are a number of men contributing here-Barry,Geoff,”klaus”,the guy from kansas,”Mangeek,etc.
BTW who the hell wants to convert you?You sound thoroughly miserable and angry so stay that way.
Sorry for the typos but I think you get my point.