Is Gender Discrimination the Main Reason Women Are Paid Less Than Men?

Just curious but have any women posted in this thread?

 

it's a myth. the difference in pay isn't statisically significant for the same occupation between gender.

it's misleading by the media. they claim women make less than man in general. but that's due to career choices, NOT within the same field. women in my group all make around the same money as men depending on experience and years with the company.

it's misleading in that, for example, women go for nursing for than men, men go for doctor more than women. so of course, on average, men makes more than women. but it's not that female doctors make less than male doctors. it's more due to women's traditional role in society that causes this to happen. is that discrimination against women? that's your call.

 

Not true. There is an absolutely amazing amount of data that says otherwise.

I have in my briefcase the 2007 salary survey performed by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)*. They do this survey every year, and it's one of the more interesting items they publish. Men make more than women for every age group except the 36-40 years experience category. That category is of course skewed - 2 female respondents, 121 male.

And it's not small change either. At 16-20 years experience the wage gap is over 13 grand.

This is just an example I have on hand. Google can provide more supporting data than you can handle.


*CEP, August 2007, pp25-30

 

you have any information on how the survey is designed? i'm a statistician, and i know sometimes people have bad design that will show crappy result. in your survey, how many total females versus how many male engineers? if you have the data, i can make some models to see what's going on.

 

2210 respondents. 1739 men and 284 women. I guess you could complain about that, but women constitute ~10% of the engineering workforce...

Anyhow, there are 4 paragraphs devoted to survey design, and I am way to lazy to type that up. I'd find it hard to believe this survey inaccurate - it's a peer-reviewed journal, not Newsweek.

Up to 30 years experience, the average gap is ~9500 dollars per year.

 

Perhaps women are more content with what they get, rather than push for raises, promotions, or other benefits to them?

In some cases, in some lines of work, people need to be a bit, tough, for lack of a better word, in what they demand.

 

I'm not interested in thinly-veiled sexist and stupidly subjective arguments regarding this topic.

 

Why is it that otherwise intelligent people can't see that they are sexist? That women suffer from discrimination in the workplace? Your post is a perfect example, but you won't see it that way. And I say that with the greatest respect.



Impeach Bush.

 

I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.

 

Tech -- you're probably wondering why you're getting jumped on for what you intended as an innocent comment.

"Discrimination" is different beast then in Deckard's day (sorry old man). I've never worked at a place where women were paid less, nor have I ever been able to hire a woman and pay her less.

But I have seen women's careers stagnate because it was assumed that they were 'content.' Men were more likely to be mentored to promotions, or encouraged to leave if they did not aspire to better jobs. A woman could stay at the same level much longer. That's not to say that some women are OK with this...but often there is a bias that encourages it.

I think there are many factors that go into the different pay levels for women and men. And different fields have hugely different influences. But discrimination is still there to a degree.

 

Deckard, while the GAO study shows there is some discrimination, it says the primary reason is women work less and take more time off.

The queston is- do women get paid less because corporations anticipate based on their sex that they will work less? If so that's discrimination. But if women take years off for pregnancy and child rearing, and as a result get paid less, then that is not discrimination.

It happens to men too. I know a guy took a pay cut so he could work fewer hours and be with his kids.

Another thing- men are still usually the "bread- winners" of the family. That means they are more likely to move to different jobs in different geographic locations to get a raise. Women, if they are the secondary earner, are unlikely to move the whole family and force the primary earner to change jobs. And in my experience, it takes a lot of "moving around" to get paid what you are really worth, whether you are a man or woman.

 

My theory is that men, as primary wage-earners (usually), are more likely to go job-hunting and move the family to a higher paying job. Women, on the other hand, dont have that freedom.

That wouldnt be sexism by the corporation. Maybe by the husband though.

 

This example is from the 60's?

I have had the exat opposite experience. I have seen many women attain high positions of power, get good raises, good bonuses, and good promotions. This is in every single corporation I've been in. And it has been based on performance. Just recently another woman got promoted- and she was the only woman in the group.

Even in the male-dominated energy trading industry, I have seen women employed in very good positions that I hope to be in someday.

Also, how can you tell if it's a glass ceiling? Sometimes it's extremely difficult to break into that next level, for anybody.

 

It was just a suggestion that maybe a higher percentage of women aren't as stern with their employer, and may be less likely to demand raises or promotions.
Where I come from, bosses don't want to give raises. If the employer feels that they don't have to, why would they?

I'm sure that there is discrimination out there, always will be, in many aspects of life. My earlier comments were more geared toward the overall job market, but this topic is dealing with same job/same position/same experience level.

Perhaps my suggestion is subjective, so be it. Until a study is made on it, just put it in your pipe and hit the ignore button.

 

I agree. There is no perfect explanation, and I don't claim to know it. I may throw out a possible scenario that might apply to a minority of people, but that doesn't mean I discount other influences.

 

Very true. If the wife is working to supplement the primary income, she'd be forced to find the best job she can in whichever place the primary job holder settled to. Still, the argument is (I think), that whichever job the wife took, may be paying her less than the man working next to her....

How would it be sexism by the husband? In a family setting, which I think still involves a lot of women, it's natural for the woman to take a bigger role in the kids welfare, while the man spends his energy to make the money. I don't consider that sexism, since most women who desire a family with kids, would much rather raise them than work all day at a job.

 

There's also a huge amount of information that shows women are better at conforming to rules and expectations than men.

This is great for them in school, university and in the early part of their careers where everyone has to shut up and listen. But for career development, just doing what's asked won't get you to the highest point.

This is why men are more productive as first year employees than women.

I am offended that there are people here denying facts. The fact of the matter is, men work more days per year and that alone should explain the gap (if any, btw) between their pay.

Just because I'm stating what's known doesn't make me racist. In a job interview tomorrow, I will assess a female the same as a male and I will pick the best person given my knowledge. I refuse to be ignorant and not acknowledge that the probability of a female getting married, giving birth, etc is higher than males. If I have a report in front of me telling me that the male has a poor attendance record and the female has been perfect and expects to focus on her career, I will decide differently. But unless I am satisfied with what I know, I will have to go with the probabilities.

Simple.

 

It is subjective. That does not mean it is wrong, but it does mean that it's really nothing more than an opinion.

I can't explain why the study I cited reveals such a huge wage gap. Occam's razor would suggest discrimination, but a myriad of other factors are no doubt involved.

 

how many covariates were checked in this study? i mean, what if all the female subjects are in small market area while male subjects in big markets like NY. you have to adjust pretty much all types of possible factors that may alter the result. without details of the study, there is really no way telling how 'accurate' this is.

do girls work in mcdonald's make less than boys work in mcdonald's? i don't think so.

 

Sigh.... I briefy considered typing in the details of the study despite your laughable mcdonald's analogy.

But it's a waste of my time. Carry on...