The first and most obvious form of wage discrimination is the stereotypical "boys club" mentality. In male-dominated careers, such as engineering, women with equal or better qualifications are often passed over for promotions and wage increases in lieu of their male counterparts because the generation of men in charge of these things is older and set in their ways. They are threatened by women and are simply more comfortable being in equal standing (on a board with, equal in auhority, etc) with other men. A lot of these I don't even believe is malicious intent, but simply ignorance of women. There is this absurd idea in the older generation of men that females are these strange, unknowable, mysterious creatures that are a constant threat to a man's psyche. Obviously this is absurd and completely off track with reality, but it does help toward understanding of why the older generation of men is so reticent to want equality for women. We scare them. No one taught them how to relate to us, or worse, taught them we are so different from them that they cannot relate to us. It's really very sad.
The second form of wage discrimination is not the fault of men, persay, but the fault of nature. Women are the only members of this species capable of procreation. This puts us in a bit of a bind. We may want children, we may (like me) even want to stay at home to raise those children in lieu of sending them to a daycare to be raised under the influence of someone else who really doesn't care about them. We didn't ask for the uterus, we just got it. The problem with this of course is that whether you are a career woman or not, if you choose to have children, you absolutely will have to take time away from work to be their parent. In the traditional roles, where the woman does most or all of the caretaking, a man who has children is not saddled with this requirement of taking time away from his career. From a physical standpoint alone a woman has to take time off to give birth and breastfeed should she so choose, and this is a huge time consumer that is not her fault. And since we can't (and should not) just say "Well women who want careers shouldn't have babie" we have to find a middle ground where we stop treating work as the end all be all of life. People should work to live, not live to work. In America we have this very strange and outlandish idea that a person's job or career defines who they are instead of just how much money they make. The simple solution would be for employers to be much more flexible toward employees with children so that they can continue to excel and be productive members of the company without having to make the terrible decision of who matters more, child or boss.
It's become almost a truism in the United States to point out that after all these years of progressive campaigning, women still make less on average than their male counterparts and that this is obviously patently wrong. Indeed, few would argue against this statement, even conservative politicians, for fear of the political repercussions. Yet just a few months ago, when legislation dealing with this issue was brought to vote, every single Republican in the legislature voted against it. From the look of things, we still have a long way to go on wage equality.
Even though our society has moved toward equality between the genders in many ways, wage and salary data consistently shows a gap between that women and men earn for the same work. The wage gap appears across all sectors of employment, and is especially problematic when comparing positions in which physical performance, such as heavy-lifting, is not a factor in determining wage. This leads analysts to conclude that gender must be a factor in how workers are paid.
On average, women get 70 cents per every dollar a man works for doing the exact same job. Bonus: Did you know that a man and a woman can have the exact same resume, but a man is more likely to get called back for a job interview or get a job offer?
It has been proven time and time again that women continue to make less than men for the same job and the Microsoft CEO comments just prove that people want to continue to keep women down. People never get anywhere in this world by being complacent and hoping things change but putting no work in.
In the jobs I have held I have been consistently been paid less than my male coworkers. From being a line worker at a factory where I was told that "women can not supervise women" as an excuse not to promote me, to working in the technical field as a bench tech where my supervisor admitted to paying me less in spite of my doing higher quality work than my male coworker. I feel that the only reason I am now being paid what I am worth is because I run my own business. Otherwise I would still be making barely above minimum wage. Which sucks!
Women who do not leave the work force to raise children get the same wage as men who stay in the workforce. It is unfair to the men who continue to work to allow a woman to quit her job for several years, and demand raises and promotions as though she had never quit. Women choose to say home. That is not the men's fault.
Think of it like this, if women were ACTUALLY paid less wouldn't those greedy companies be looking to hire them more than any others? Wouldn't that make males the less preferred work force? The answer to my questions is yes. But I don't see any more female workers than male workers so how could they possibly be paid less. All companies want is to maximize their income. So if women were paid less they would be hired more which is in fact not true.
This argument of the "wage gap" between men and women has been shot down numerous times.
Yes, when you compare the sum of the salaries of alll the men and alll the women it seems that women make around 30% less. But lets take into account some things.
-Woman have pregnancy leave and will often stay off work even longer to take care of the baby
-A majority of women tend to be housewives (not saying they have to be) and take a part time, minimum wage job, to get out of the house and boost the houses finances a bit.
-Women who take careers as professionals are statistically more likely to take lower paying jobs in their field of study (Surgeons for example as usually men, but there are quite a few physicians who are women. Both professions are doctors but surgeons get paid much more.)
- a few other things I can't think of right now
and lets take another look at this, If a company pays Joe 10$/h and pays Susan 7$/h THEY WOULD GET SUED FOR PREJUDICE it would be so obvious if it were true not to mention every company would hire women because they could pay them less than men. The only time when someone in the exact same job would get paid more is if they have worked there longer (raises) or are in a management position (more responsibility).
No jealousy here, only thanks, but the Amazon warriors of feminism, the penis envy sort, will argue all day long that more cash will make them more equal. That is all this is about. Feminitsas, those that are repulsed by their honor of raising a babe, are at war with men. They are really at war with Hue Mens.
The problem with the pay gap argument is that the 78 cent mark incorporates ALL work. This doesn't translate to any differences in fields specifically; for instance to say that doctors have a 22 cent pay gap is incorrect ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/03/female-doctors-earn-50k-less-than-male-doctors/ ) and furthermore difficult to discern, "One factor researchers were not able to adjust for though was specialty, which is important: Specialists, such as surgeons or radiologists, tend to earn significantly more than primary care providers. Women account for more than half of the country's pediatricians but fewer than 10 percent of orthopedic surgeons, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Authors Seth Seabury, Amitabh Chandra and Anupam Jena write that, even without the specialty adjustment, the space between male and female doctors' salaries still merits examination.", and while I don't doubt that there is some form of discriminatory status between genders as well as races and various other backgrounds, choices, appearances, and such I am left unable to ascribe to this "averaged" idea with any level of clarity because the averaged difference does not express differences in many ways between male and female work patterns and behaviors and ambitions.
I want to leave with this:
"Dr. Jagsi was careful to point out that she did not believe that the gender bias was conscious: “Increasingly, we see institutional leaders who want male and female faculty to succeed.” Instead, she points to psychological studies, including the major report by the United States Academy of Sciences, that have shown that both men and women tend to underestimate women’s work and abilities. This kind of statistical discrimination also leads employers to see women as more likely to take on greater household duties or take time off when they become mothers, despite the fact that within the sample women were proportionally less likely to have children.
An additional blow to the female physician’s salary can likely be attributed to negotiation tactics. Women are already less likely to negotiate for a raise than men. While male and female bosses may want to equitably provide what is best for all their employees, women seem to be at a psychological disadvantage. That means female physicians and all working women need to be aware of how they’re perceived – and what they can do about it."
Is it real? Yes. Is it a conspiracy? Not so much.
Another feminist tactic they use. They take time off often too. When they don't get time off, they are paid the same. Not to forget to mention all female businesses. I'm guessing since ALL women don't get equal pay it also means that under female bosses at an only female workplace.