quote:

Originally posted by charmscars there are so few ppl in general that are in professional sports in canada, this would hardly have much of an effect. Female Models and dancers make much more than the male equivalent and there are more of them, so I would argue that this would surely cancel this out.

Well no not really Tara - I'm talking strictly about salary, but models and dancers make money through contracts mostly. If we include all the advertising and endorsement contracts, benefits, etc., then we're talking about substantially more money. However, although contracts are a source of income, the "men get paid more than women" argument generally only takes into account salary, and not contracts. So high-paying female-dominated jobs like modelling often don't get factored into the equation at ALL, because their money doesn't come in through salary!

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot to mention that earlier. And high-paying sports salaries may not be numerous, but a few thousand people make 7 figures is enough to bump up the average enough to be noticed.

quote:

yes it is costly for women to go on a leave to have children, but if they didn't, everyone would be screwed, there wouldn't be enough ppl in the upcoming generations to take care of our generation- both in terms of ppl to pay taxes and ppl wokring in the healthcare industry to take care of us, as well as ppl to fill jobs!

Collectivist argument that companies should be sinking their own hard-earned profits into "society". While this may be the status quo in Canada, other countries consider it a violation of civil rights to force a company (or an individual) to do this. And since labour laws here essentially REQUIRE a company to support the mat leave (that is, it's up to them to find a temporary replacement and re-staff the woman when she's ready), that money IS SUNK.

One may consider it a "good" law that companies have to follow through with this, but it means that any woman on their staff who gets pregnant is almost invariably going to cost the company a lot of money. Thus it makes a woman on their staff a worse investment in general. If we didn't have such strict and irrational labour law - i.e. if companies could re-staff the position and then wave goodbye to the new mother - there would be far more incentive to invest more money in that labour. And that's not to say that companies would do this all the time if they were allowed to: many companies say to employees (male and female) who move on with their lives that they are welcome to come back any time. There is nothing so outlandish about about valuing an employee highly enough to make an offer for her to come back whenever she's done raising the babies, but there is something a little suspect about forcing the companies to do it.

Companies care about their bottom line, they aren't interested in how their money is helping society, and they shouldn't have to be. The mat leave arrangements will either make the company reluctant to hire a woman at all (which society and the Labour Police tell them is a definite no-no), or inclined to fiddle with the arrangements a bit so they break even after including this risk factor.

There is obviously sound logic behind this. It may be cold and calculated, but individuals and corporations have the right (or should have it) to be just that. The problem comes in turning it into a gender-specific and/or discriminatory practice when it's really about their bottom line - I'm sure if a woman walked in and said she's married with 2 teenagers and her husband is sterile, they'd be willing to pay her more. It's just less of a financial risk for the company.

quote:

aaron, there is such a things as a 'pink ghetto' jobs that are predominantly held by women pay less than jobs held by men, factory workers make more than daycare workers, garbage men, make more than hairdressers (who work w/ harmful chemicals) my mother works a job that requires a job graduate work (she's a librarian) she has an undergrad and 2 master's degrees. but my dad's college diploma has allowed him to make more than double what she makes. The reason jobs that are predominantly done my men that are of a low-skill level pay better are due to historcal reasons. When women didn't work men were paid a 'family wage' - jobs performed by women paid a 'supplementary wage' as time has passed this gap has lessened, but not nearly enough.

We have to look at these comparisons rationally:

Factory workers :: daycare workers - factory work is a HORRIBLE job, it's not only stressful but also carries a high risk of injury and low job security.

Garbage men :: hairdressers - Aside from the fact that there are many more male hairdressers than there are female garbage pickers, it's obvious which job carries the more imminent risk factor. Sure, the chemicals in a salon might pose a mild long-term risk of various diseases and disorders, but directly handling medical or nuclear waste brings that risk into the NEAR FUTURE. Also, many hairdressers set their own salaries based on rates which they feel are reasonable, so they don't have a corporation to blame. Finally, waste disposal in Canada is a government job, which on average tends to make it 25% more cushy than non-government jobs based solely on that fact.

College diploma :: extended education - well to me this is a non-issue. The belief that more education leads to a higher salary is mostly myth. It's true that the pay is higher if the graduate takes a salaried, entry-level job directly in his/her field, but the people who really make high salaries usually either (a) are tradespeople, (b) make a lot of good investments, or (c) run or are very high up in a company.

quote:

there are things that women can do to help themselves out. these are things that I am doing right now, but things that woudl have an adverse effect if everyone did it this way: 1) stay out of industries dominated by women- don't go into nursing, teaching, childcare etc. you will be paid more, even with less education if you go into male-dominated industries.

That's very good advice. I too would like to see more women going into IT and technical fields to break the whole male stereotype. There have been many threads about this in the past and it's hard to determine the reasons why women in general hate this industry so much. No one is sure if it's just the "image" - let's hope that it really is that simple and that things will change.

There are two separate issues, however, that people tend to lump into one without realizing it:
1. They are male-dominated << this is due to historical reasons
2. They pay more << this is due to the nature of the work

So yes, one can say "male-dominated industries pay more", and by correlation it is probably true, but one must keep in mind the old statistical saying that correlation does NOT equal causation. The cause for those industries being male-dominated is DIFFERENT from the cause for those industries paying more.

The desire to "level the playing field" without actually looking at the true causative factors involved is not only patently irrational but also grievously unfair to the higher earners. They haven't necessarily had easier lives merely because they earn more money - and there's certainly no evidence that they got where they are "off the backs of" women or anyone else.


Sorry for the long essay but there seem to be a lot of misconceptions out there about this issue and I'd really like to give some food for thought to everyone.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here