the good ole' wage gap.

Started by wetpaint, Sep 15, 2004, 10:44 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Galt

The core basis for the wage gap is not number of hours of overtime worked, or time on the job, or risk or unpleasantness involved in the job etc. --- those are outward signs of the real deal, that there are different expectations on men and women in society.  Like, really.

Most women look to earning power in a man as an important feature.  Not all, most.  Most men may think about it in terms of a woman, but then get distracted when she arches her chest out while taking off her jacket.

I was hypnotized by the "equality" thing in college, but when I got out in the real world, I had to rethink my calculations a bit, after seeing women in their early 20s (my age at that time) working as secretaries without a college degree who were already modestly bragging about the size of their house, their trip to Italy and their new car.  This wasn't paid for out of their secretary's salary.  It wasn't going quite as well financially for me, although I ostensibly earned more money as a college grad.  It dawned on me that one day, if I worked hard, I too could then afford to support one of these women - and would then be in the position of her husband.  LOL

Some women are really into the work they do, they want to do the best job they can, and they want to keep moving forward - and also be honest about the money.  And then there are other women.  You can sort out the percentages based on your own real-life experience.

But if you look at it that way, OF COURSE some women who have husbands supplying the real breadwinning are not going to be as motivated to move up.  They don't care.  Frankly, if I won the lotto, I wouldn't care either.  Although I actually like my job now (I didn't when I was in my 20s), I think there's a difference between the word "hobby" and the word "job".  "Job" means that you have to do it, even on days you don't feel like it.  "Hobby" means that you do it when you want, or you try out something you want, or you do it until you don't want to do it anymore, while something or someone else regularly pays for things.

Some men (like ... me) have the experience of finding the work world to be a bit dull out of college, to put it mildly, but after you find a niche and get competent at something, it's not so bad, in fact work is sometimes even fun and a source of pride ... like a hobby.  But you have to go through the apprenticeship of having all the crap jobs thrown your way as a newcomer when you are young.  For a lot of young women, there is an alternative way out: through a man.  So they never get into that mode; they take the easy way out.  Maybe it's better that men have to struggle upwards and women CAN struggle upwards, but for many it's just too easy to "retire" at a young age.

Galt

There are also some macro-economic things to consider:

1) Especially in US Government jobs, or even in big companies due to the EEOC, there are pretty much standard wage scales.  I mean either you are GS-12 in the US Government or Product Manager or whatever in a large company - and the pay scales are pay scales.

2) In smaller companies, you come down to relationships.  A man who starts a business may well want to work with his buddies.  A woman who starts a business may well want to work with her buddies.  But still, men will feel the hot breath of the EEOC on their neck (if they are above a certain number of employees), women won't ... as far as I practically know.

3) So then you get into freelance work, self-employed work, professions like doctor, lawyer, accountant, Indian Chief.  It comes down to you.  Since more than half the population is female, and since my feeling is that most people will take the person they feel is most competent, although some feminist groups push for patronization of women businesses, it's ... uhhh ... kind of up to you how much you earn.

4) So add to that the set-asides for women-run businesses (yes they exist, and yes they are significant), add affirmative action in US Government hiring, possible affirmative action in large companies, certainly more than affirmative action - even discrimination in large-university hiring, and you're starting to understand that the "wage gap" may not just be due to evil males oppressing innocent-victim women.

5) And one other point: Let's say that women who do EXACTLY the same job as men, with the same amount of expertise, the same amount of motivation, the same commitment (including overtime), the same experience and the same ability only earn $0.75 for every dollar a man earns.

Picture that.  That's what the feminists say.

So then start a company, and instead of employing men, you exclusively employ women, even with a raise to $0.80 for every dollar a man earns.  You've got a whalloping edge over your competition right from the start.  Massive.  In fact, by offering such a raise, you will pull away the best from the competition.

Yeah, well ...

Galt

You also have to remember that feminists feed off victimhood.  It's their bread and butter, and it gets them what they want.

So they may temporarily crow about women being superior in some area, but then maybe sheepishly look around and remember that they have to go back to their core talent - victimhood.

If all of a sudden men said that they would look after the family, but were going to stay home, or just kind of work part-time to "help out", I mean as long as it was OK at work, then feminists would start a massive campaign about lazy men.  No matter how much they did at home.

Feminists are experts at manipulating chivalry and guilt on the part of men.  That's their job - sometimes their only job.  Some of them work in women's studies, where it is their job to read feminist hate texts and then think of ever more subtle possibilities for ways that men oppress women.  Some don't work, but have a lot of time to pick up on Oprah and Dr. Phil.  They also have a lot of time to think about why it's NOT FAIR.

Mr Benn

Quote from: "Galt"
If all of a sudden men said that they would look after the family, but were going to stay home, or just kind of work part-time to "help out", I mean as long as it was OK at work, then feminists would start a massive campaign about lazy men.  No matter how much they did at home.


Very true.
ww.CoolTools4Men.com

nyet

Quote
Galt said:
You also have to remember that feminists feed off victimhood. It's their bread and butter, and it gets them what they want.


Which also proves them to be liars. Their often stated goal is to end inequality between men and women, but if that were the truth, they'd be putting themselves out of business.

Much like Jesse Jackson and his claim to be working for the end of 'black suffering'. These con artists, Kim Gandy et al are not about to admit that they are tilting at windmills. It would put them out of their multi-million dollar lifestyles.

Quote
So they may temporarily crow about women being superior in some area, but then maybe sheepishly look around and remember that they have to go back to their core talent - victimhood.


The only profession people like Kim Gandy have is victimhood. It's like that snarling bitch Jeanie over at the Ms. Boards, who spends all her time promoting feminist hate literature and bitching and moaning at how good men have it. If she ever put in an honest day's work, she'd have a myocardial infarction.

Quote

If all of a sudden men said that they would look after the family, but were going to stay home, or just kind of work part-time to "help out", I mean as long as it was OK at work, then feminists would start a massive campaign about lazy men. No matter how much they did at home.


Just look at how they decry families with stay-at-home dads, where the moms work and the dads take care of the kids because it's to the family's economic advantage to do so. They are crybabies, these feminists, and they are terrific at it.

Quote
They also have a lot of time to think about why it's NOT FAIR.


'It's not fair' is the one sentence that should be tattooed on the forehead of every feminist.

scarbo

Quote from: "wetpaint"
A thread I've been having some fun with lately.

atforumz.com/showthread.php?t=243373&page=1&pp=15


One thing I raised on that message board was the issue of the glass-ceiling vs. the glass-cellar. Women are always proclaiming that they are unfairly kept out of CEO-type jobs, "positions of power", etc. But surprise, one never hears them complain about female representation in bottom-rung jobs (sewer worker, electric linesman, etc.)

Funny how no one was able to come up with a good counter to my assertion. Also funny how that thread has seemingly lost interest among those who started it.

nyet

Another thing I've found very interesting is that women who are in supervisory roles often promote men over women because they do not want other females in what they enjoy as 'their' space. They don't want the competition, and they want the whole 'I'm so rare' feather in their cap.

They are vicious and shrewd, and far more sexist than most men.

Go Up