Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ju'iblex · 07-01-2002, 03:05 AM

Quote:

jubilex,

sorry, pet peeve of mine.

Quote:

I think the point is, why would men care about the pleasure of an "object"? It seems obvious that many men, perhaps a majority of men, do care about the women in thier lives in many different ways.

i will agree that many men do indeed care about women, i wouldnt argue otherwise for a second. But i had somewhat strayed from the point myself with Amen Moses, who claimed that the objectification of men was just as prevalent as the objectification of women in western society. that is what im arguing, and when time is a less valuable commodity than at the moment i will present that case more thoroughly.

Quote:

I guess that the flip side of that is, in many cases, those same men can then go out and enjoy the services of a prostitute, view pornography, go to strip clubs, etc. For thier own reasons, many women don't seem to like these aspects of male behavior.

True.

Quote:

Personnaly, I think the women in many of these cases have a problem of thier own; thier jealosy and envy are showing. Trying to stop men from being men(or a person from being a person) is pathological in it's own right, IMHO.

and here's where i start disagreeing. I disagree that fighting against the presentation of women as sexual objects in advertising, in popular culture, in anything is in the slightest about jealousy or envy.

look, im tired, i'll finish this later.

Dr Rick · 07-01-2002, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by snatchbalance:
...This is why, at least on a cultural basis, it has become "OK" for men to engage in sexual dalience, but not females, IMO.

There is also an evolutionary aspect of this situation that I have not touched on.

In my culture, such behavior by either men or women is frowned upon.

Rick

snatchbalance · 07-01-2002, 07:36 AM

Rick,

Yes, various cultures exhibit differing levels of tolerance. Globally, however, I believe my assertions hold true.

SB

brighid · 07-01-2002, 07:38 AM

�Indeed, the Department of Labor reports that in 1999 women earned approximately 77 percent as much as men did, up a little more than a dime since 1963. African-American and Latino women fare worse at 65 percent and 59 percent, respectively. �

Now factor in the cost of living increase and you will find that we have made no head way in this regard. It still remains that minority women fare worse. Collectively, within racial AND gender lines women (in general) make between 23 � 41% less then equally qualified males.

�A preponderance of studies on the employment distribution of women and men provides evidence that women often face glass ceilings and glass walls at the federal and state levels.�

Let us understand that often does not mean always and when I have stated that women (generally) make less then equally qualified male counterparts this is the intended distinction. There will always be exceptions to the rule and there will certain fields of work and industry where women fare better or equally to men, but when discussing the general population and what the average women faces I do not feel I have made unsubstantiated or �blanket� statements.

Snatch quoted �On average, women superintendents are paid slightly more than male superintendents, but they also oversee larger school districts with bigger budgets.� But forget to add the following pertinent information: �Descriptive data such as this, while interesting, tell us very little about whether or not gender discrimination exists in salaries simply because the comparisons do not control for other factors that influence salaries.�

�For each increase of one percentage point of funds coming from local sources, men are paid 0.11% more and women are paid 0.06% less all other things being equal. While these figures appear small, a one standard deviation change in percent local funding (23%) is associated with a gender wage gap of 3.9%. Particularly in relatively wealthy school districts (those with a high percentage of local funds), gender differences superintendent salaries could be substantial. �

�A general look at the status of women in academia reveals that women are an under-represented group in tenured faculty positions (see Morrison, this issue, on USC female faculty in the sciences and engineering). According to a 1998 report by the Higher Education Research Institute, 63% of male professors are tenured, while only 43% female professors hold tenure. There is also a salary gap between male and female professors�a gap that has been declining, but nonetheless remains significant. According to the same report by HERI, in 1989, the wage gap between the average full-time male and female professor was $7000.00, and ten years later, in 1999, the overall difference has dropped only $1000.00 to $6000.00 (Higher Education Research Institute, 1998) � The reasons that are frequently offered for hiring more women as non-tenure-track faculty often reflect unexamined assumptions about expected women�s roles in society generally; for example, professional women are frequently thought to have �different� career goals than men do, because of child-rearing and other family commitments, and assumed geographic immobility. Clearly, both the increasing numbers of female adjunct professors and the assumptions that provide justification for these hires reflect a kind of gender inequity in academia.�

University after University have done gender inequality reviews and here are the findings of just a few I have reviewed, in fact there are too many for me to post here and all have had varying degrees of gender inequality issues as related to salary and promotion.

MIT, March 1999 finding

U of Wisconsin

U of California inspired by findings of the Bureau of State audits with respect to Gender Inequality has made changes to address and redress problems.

U of Indiana � Found that inequity for minority women was significant at ALL levels (holding all else equal) and salary inequity was most pronounced at the assistant level for white women. <a href="http://www.indstate.edu/oirt/faculty%20research%20actions%20results.doc" target="_blank">http://www.indstate.edu/oirt/faculty%20research%20actions%20results.doc</a>

Kansas State Univ. � 1997 Sex Discrimination Lawsuit filed as the Department of Labor found the University to be out of compliance with federal guidelines w/ regard to salaries and promotions. <a href="http://www.trumbull.kent.edu/~aaup/oct17.html" target="_blank">http://www.trumbull.kent.edu/~aaup/oct17.html</a>

Marguette University found significant negative effect on initial salary because of gender, as well as promotions and appointments to administrative positions and because initial salary had a significant and positive effect on current salary it found women to be at a disadvantage when compared (all things being equal) to their male colleagues. This in turn effected later promotions and appointments. <a href="http://www.marquette.edu/genderequity/introduction/data.html" target="_blank">http://www.marquette.edu/genderequity/introduction/data.html</a>

UCSD <a href="http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/women/csw/lettertodynes20000203.html" target="_blank">http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/women/csw/lettertodynes20000203.html</a>

Uof Wiscon at Green Bay <a href="http://www.uwgb.edu/equality/needs.htm" target="_blank">http://www.uwgb.edu/equality/needs.htm</a>

UTK: <a href="http://web.utk.edu/~aauputk/Newsletter2-02.pdf" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~aauputk/Newsletter2-02.pdf</a> - Found that in their hiring and tenure practices women were sorely underrepresented and all studies from 1972 to the present found salary differences in men and women. They also took into account a factor I had not previously thought of and that was lower income ratios and overall contribution to retirement accounts. In their findings there was a $8 million disparity for female faculty because of their lower salaries. Now that is significant!

Why, when considering all things equal does there seem to be a pervasive finding that women suffer due to gender inequality in the work place, even as a few women advance to equal positions? It is because of the rampant and negative views of women, the demand by penalization that they stay in their rightfully appointed places � the home by making it more difficult for them to compete in a free market. Men, whether they are active or economic institutions because of their fatherhood do not financially penalize absentee fathers. Their advancement into the higher ranks is not impeded by their paternity and their future ability to earn and save is not penalized, even when legal child support demands are placed upon the rightful father by the state.

Brighid

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

snatchbalance · 07-01-2002, 08:25 AM

Brighid,

Quote:

Women who don’t have children still make on average 25 percent less then their male peers, even though she is equally qualified for that position.

The above is your original statement that I took exception to. After all those gyrations, it is still bullshit. In this country, right now, by and large, if two people hold them same position, they recieve roughly equal pay.

Be that as it may, I have never questioned the fact that, on average, women make less than men. However, I do content that there are a number of reasons for this situation. Some factors you may want to consider:

1. Average educational level.
2. Average time in the workforce.
3. Average number of hours worked.
4. Average rate absenteeism.
5. Average percieved level of risk(physical).
6. Average propensity for risk taking(finacial).
7. On average, how agressive are women when compared to men?

Some of these things are easier to quantify than others, but I think you'll have a hard time arguing any of them away.

Now, I'll tell you right now, I'm not going to try to engage in some sort of war of statistics on this subject(I'm too busy try to make living myself). Besides, like I said to Lady Shea, my only real point in making those statemants, was to demonstrate just how easily statistics can be manipulated.

SB

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

snatchbalance · 07-01-2002, 08:46 AM

Brighid,

I'm really not trying to be dismissive. But look, I read through one of you references at random, the one from Indiana State University.

So, like I said, it's not surprising that they found some equalty in pay. However, this is one of the telling statistics, IMO.

They spent $190,000 to correct these inequalities. Out of a total payrole of how many millions? Also, if you look at the details, they included minority males, and, i think you will find that, on average, the minority males were fareing worse that the females.

Statistics suck.

SB

brighid · 07-01-2002, 10:23 AM

Snatch,

Would you care to provide some actual findings to support your point of view? Unfortunately, the studies that I sighted by and large took into account the things you have mentioned and that is why I frequently used ALL THINGS BEING equal and STILL the disparity! I really don�t find it at all surprising that minority men find themselves at a disadvantage either � given the history of race relations in this country but that is an ENTIRELY different issue even though there are correlations. If you take the time to read through the research I posted you will see that many reference the racial/gender issue. Again as compared to a black man, a black woman still fares WORSE and women in the collective sense have been and continue to be at a disadvantage. Now, you may disagree with me all you want. We both have our own individual experiences with this situation, however those situations only make our circumstance real and aren�t necessarily representative of the whole. Provide some data to back it up, something other than your opinion. The fact remains, despite statistics is that individual institutions have done self-audits and time and time again they have found disparities and among some institutions the disparities are significant and damaging. Must women be disadvantaged by millions of dollars per institution for this to be real enough for you? I don�t know about you, but with my salary a few thousand dollars is a significant difference and over the span of a career it is even more significant. The fact that employers must do these things and the our government has had to legislate fair standards is strong evidence that this problem STILL exists within the general population, even though there are examples of this not being the case within certain segments of society or individual institutions. These are the exception rather then the rule.

So, why is it that the findings of all of these different institutions, when compared to one another reflect similar disparities as I have previously posted? How many white men of similar age, education and background are ACTUALLY disenfranchised in America or penalized for either their gender or their parenthood by their employers and NOT other factors not taken into account � where is the systemic discrimination that can be found in similar accordance as has been found by independent and internal review by top universities alone?

The government findings have been different then your claim as well. I don�t put absolute faith in statistics and often time the bias can be shown within the actually testing itself, but I think you will find most of the articles (if not all) have presented a balanced perspective and many have taken time and care to consider the factors you have mentioned to be sure they were eliminated from their final findings, or given proper consideration in the conclusion. Each of these universities found that women in general, giving all things equal, were disadvantaged in comparison to their male counterparts and this was the case more times then not. Please take the time to read the information I have posted. None of it is too complicated and if you truly find anything that is terribly off balance, please let me know and in the interests of this important discussion I appreciate your feedback but I would also appreciate something more then your opinion to counter my claims.

Brighid

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

brighid · 07-01-2002, 10:37 AM

For those following this issue, or interested in Feminist movements there is a conference in August in London, ON

<a href="http://publish.uwo.ca/~sjburrow/feminist_ethics.html" target="_blank">http://publish.uwo.ca/~sjburrow/feminist_ethics.html</a>

Wish that i could attend.

Brighid

snatchbalance · 07-01-2002, 11:57 AM

Brighid,

Look, you said something to the effect that, "women in equal positions recieve 25% less then the men, and further more, they are penalised an additional 6% for each child".

Now, these are some very specific, and, IMO, outrageous claims. What have you provided to support such claims. Nothing.

Now, If you had said something like, "women, on average, are paid less than men". Well, no problem.

Furthermore, show me just one indication, in any of your studies, where the inherant biological differences in temperment between males and females were accounted for, and I'll eat that study.

sb

brighid · 07-01-2002, 12:02 PM

Maybe I have not been clear, but I don't have time to address that right at this moment. But perhaps my next post will help. I will see what research I can find that substantiates those claims. The research I did do in regards to the 6% for each child can be found in the Harvard Business Review Article I referenced for you. I also believe the 25% is in there as well, but I don't have the article handy.

Brighid

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

07-01-2002, 07:38 AM	#124
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	�Indeed, the Department of Labor reports that in 1999 women earned approximately 77 percent as much as men did, up a little more than a dime since 1963. African-American and Latino women fare worse at 65 percent and 59 percent, respectively. � Now factor in the cost of living increase and you will find that we have made no head way in this regard. It still remains that minority women fare worse. Collectively, within racial AND gender lines women (in general) make between 23 � 41% less then equally qualified males. �A preponderance of studies on the employment distribution of women and men provides evidence that women often face glass ceilings and glass walls at the federal and state levels.� Let us understand that often does not mean always and when I have stated that women (generally) make less then equally qualified male counterparts this is the intended distinction. There will always be exceptions to the rule and there will certain fields of work and industry where women fare better or equally to men, but when discussing the general population and what the average women faces I do not feel I have made unsubstantiated or �blanket� statements. Snatch quoted �On average, women superintendents are paid slightly more than male superintendents, but they also oversee larger school districts with bigger budgets.� But forget to add the following pertinent information: �Descriptive data such as this, while interesting, tell us very little about whether or not gender discrimination exists in salaries simply because the comparisons do not control for other factors that influence salaries.� �For each increase of one percentage point of funds coming from local sources, men are paid 0.11% more and women are paid 0.06% less all other things being equal. While these figures appear small, a one standard deviation change in percent local funding (23%) is associated with a gender wage gap of 3.9%. Particularly in relatively wealthy school districts (those with a high percentage of local funds), gender differences superintendent salaries could be substantial. � �A general look at the status of women in academia reveals that women are an under-represented group in tenured faculty positions (see Morrison, this issue, on USC female faculty in the sciences and engineering). According to a 1998 report by the Higher Education Research Institute, 63% of male professors are tenured, while only 43% female professors hold tenure. There is also a salary gap between male and female professors�a gap that has been declining, but nonetheless remains significant. According to the same report by HERI, in 1989, the wage gap between the average full-time male and female professor was $7000.00, and ten years later, in 1999, the overall difference has dropped only $1000.00 to $6000.00 (Higher Education Research Institute, 1998) � The reasons that are frequently offered for hiring more women as non-tenure-track faculty often reflect unexamined assumptions about expected women�s roles in society generally; for example, professional women are frequently thought to have �different� career goals than men do, because of child-rearing and other family commitments, and assumed geographic immobility. Clearly, both the increasing numbers of female adjunct professors and the assumptions that provide justification for these hires reflect a kind of gender inequity in academia.� University after University have done gender inequality reviews and here are the findings of just a few I have reviewed, in fact there are too many for me to post here and all have had varying degrees of gender inequality issues as related to salary and promotion. MIT, March 1999 finding U of Wisconsin U of California inspired by findings of the Bureau of State audits with respect to Gender Inequality has made changes to address and redress problems. U of Indiana � Found that inequity for minority women was significant at ALL levels (holding all else equal) and salary inequity was most pronounced at the assistant level for white women. <a href="http://www.indstate.edu/oirt/faculty%20research%20actions%20results.doc" target="_blank">http://www.indstate.edu/oirt/faculty%20research%20actions%20results.doc</a> Kansas State Univ. � 1997 Sex Discrimination Lawsuit filed as the Department of Labor found the University to be out of compliance with federal guidelines w/ regard to salaries and promotions. <a href="http://www.trumbull.kent.edu/~aaup/oct17.html" target="_blank">http://www.trumbull.kent.edu/~aaup/oct17.html</a> Marguette University found significant negative effect on initial salary because of gender, as well as promotions and appointments to administrative positions and because initial salary had a significant and positive effect on current salary it found women to be at a disadvantage when compared (all things being equal) to their male colleagues. This in turn effected later promotions and appointments. <a href="http://www.marquette.edu/genderequity/introduction/data.html" target="_blank">http://www.marquette.edu/genderequity/introduction/data.html</a> UCSD <a href="http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/women/csw/lettertodynes20000203.html" target="_blank">http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/women/csw/lettertodynes20000203.html</a> Uof Wiscon at Green Bay <a href="http://www.uwgb.edu/equality/needs.htm" target="_blank">http://www.uwgb.edu/equality/needs.htm</a> UTK: <a href="http://web.utk.edu/~aauputk/Newsletter2-02.pdf" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~aauputk/Newsletter2-02.pdf</a> - Found that in their hiring and tenure practices women were sorely underrepresented and all studies from 1972 to the present found salary differences in men and women. They also took into account a factor I had not previously thought of and that was lower income ratios and overall contribution to retirement accounts. In their findings there was a $8 million disparity for female faculty because of their lower salaries. Now that is significant! Why, when considering all things equal does there seem to be a pervasive finding that women suffer due to gender inequality in the work place, even as a few women advance to equal positions? It is because of the rampant and negative views of women, the demand by penalization that they stay in their rightfully appointed places � the home by making it more difficult for them to compete in a free market. Men, whether they are active or economic institutions because of their fatherhood do not financially penalize absentee fathers. Their advancement into the higher ranks is not impeded by their paternity and their future ability to earn and save is not penalized, even when legal child support demands are placed upon the rightful father by the state. Brighid [ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

07-01-2002, 10:23 AM	#127
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Snatch, Would you care to provide some actual findings to support your point of view? Unfortunately, the studies that I sighted by and large took into account the things you have mentioned and that is why I frequently used ALL THINGS BEING equal and STILL the disparity! I really don�t find it at all surprising that minority men find themselves at a disadvantage either � given the history of race relations in this country but that is an ENTIRELY different issue even though there are correlations. If you take the time to read through the research I posted you will see that many reference the racial/gender issue. Again as compared to a black man, a black woman still fares WORSE and women in the collective sense have been and continue to be at a disadvantage. Now, you may disagree with me all you want. We both have our own individual experiences with this situation, however those situations only make our circumstance real and aren�t necessarily representative of the whole. Provide some data to back it up, something other than your opinion. The fact remains, despite statistics is that individual institutions have done self-audits and time and time again they have found disparities and among some institutions the disparities are significant and damaging. Must women be disadvantaged by millions of dollars per institution for this to be real enough for you? I don�t know about you, but with my salary a few thousand dollars is a significant difference and over the span of a career it is even more significant. The fact that employers must do these things and the our government has had to legislate fair standards is strong evidence that this problem STILL exists within the general population, even though there are examples of this not being the case within certain segments of society or individual institutions. These are the exception rather then the rule. So, why is it that the findings of all of these different institutions, when compared to one another reflect similar disparities as I have previously posted? How many white men of similar age, education and background are ACTUALLY disenfranchised in America or penalized for either their gender or their parenthood by their employers and NOT other factors not taken into account � where is the systemic discrimination that can be found in similar accordance as has been found by independent and internal review by top universities alone? The government findings have been different then your claim as well. I don�t put absolute faith in statistics and often time the bias can be shown within the actually testing itself, but I think you will find most of the articles (if not all) have presented a balanced perspective and many have taken time and care to consider the factors you have mentioned to be sure they were eliminated from their final findings, or given proper consideration in the conclusion. Each of these universities found that women in general, giving all things equal, were disadvantaged in comparison to their male counterparts and this was the case more times then not. Please take the time to read the information I have posted. None of it is too complicated and if you truly find anything that is terribly off balance, please let me know and in the interests of this important discussion I appreciate your feedback but I would also appreciate something more then your opinion to counter my claims. Brighid [ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

07-01-2002, 12:02 PM	#130
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Maybe I have not been clear, but I don't have time to address that right at this moment. But perhaps my next post will help. I will see what research I can find that substantiates those claims. The research I did do in regards to the 6% for each child can be found in the Harvard Business Review Article I referenced for you. I also believe the 25% is in there as well, but I don't have the article handy. Brighid [ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2002, 07:36 AM	#123
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Rick, Yes, various cultures exhibit differing levels of tolerance. Globally, however, I believe my assertions hold true. SB

07-01-2002, 08:46 AM	#126
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Brighid, I'm really not trying to be dismissive. But look, I read through one of you references at random, the one from Indiana State University. So, like I said, it's not surprising that they found some equalty in pay. However, this is one of the telling statistics, IMO. They spent $190,000 to correct these inequalities. Out of a total payrole of how many millions? Also, if you look at the details, they included minority males, and, i think you will find that, on average, the minority males were fareing worse that the females. Statistics suck. SB

07-01-2002, 10:37 AM	#128
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	For those following this issue, or interested in Feminist movements there is a conference in August in London, ON <a href="http://publish.uwo.ca/~sjburrow/feminist_ethics.html" target="_blank">http://publish.uwo.ca/~sjburrow/feminist_ethics.html</a> Wish that i could attend. Brighid

07-01-2002, 11:57 AM	#129
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Brighid, Look, you said something to the effect that, "women in equal positions recieve 25% less then the men, and further more, they are penalised an additional 6% for each child". Now, these are some very specific, and, IMO, outrageous claims. What have you provided to support such claims. Nothing. Now, If you had said something like, "women, on average, are paid less than men". Well, no problem. Furthermore, show me just one indication, in any of your studies, where the inherant biological differences in temperment between males and females were accounted for, and I'll eat that study. sb

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.