OK, I've heard this before, but I thought times were changing much quicker. That women are still making sickeningly less than men doing the same job with better qualifications and work habits. I'm going to scream. And that as men and women age is gets WORSE. What in the hell?? Who is in charge of this Bozo patrol? I swear that as my generation of Father-less men moves in mature corporate leadership things could move into the blender. I want this to CHANGE. Barack......!!!!!
I swear the reason that moms aren't paid what they are worth financially is that not only is the worth "priceless" ;) - but if it had a $ amount - mamas would be millionaires.
I feel great worth in my home and through my Papa in heaven, but this outside perspective on the worth of a woman being viewed as less is insane. And DON'T GET ME STARTED on the view within the church. I love the body of Christ and that does not negate that we need some GROWTH here. I'm not just a rib-bone, folks...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- Larky Park
- Colorful, textural clothing & accessories made from vintage, salvaged and modern materials. Wholesale Retail Online Ordering
63 comments:
Good post! It upsets me as well. Used to upset me much more as I was working in a "man's field"...and therefore paid significantly less and was probably more qualified in areas. I did not have the "balls" to fight that battle though, literally. Not sure how I feel about all of it now...you are right...being a mama is "priceless" and if it did have a price we would be millionaires.
I feel differently in some ways now...it doesn't bother me as much as I am not working right now. I think we have to be careful to want to wear the pants that a man wears...I know the pay thing is definately frustrating...but as women we have power in our femininity. It's sad to me that we as women don't put as much value at times on staying home and such...and I could have just opened a whole can of worms right here. Anyway, Lisa Bevere has some good stuff on women...check her out. Here is something from one of her books...just food for thought: In Fight Like a Girl, Lisa Bevere implores us to embrace the differences between the sexes instead of trying to eradicate them. We live in a culture where women and men are encouraged to move closer to center and away from the traits that distinguish males and females. In fact, it's a common insult among men: to "fight like a girl" implies weakness. Instead, Lisa challenges women to accept-and celebrate-themselves as God created them. Their femininity is actually their greatest strength. Instead of trying to adapt to an ill-fitting male model, women need to pick up the power God ordained for them and make their unique and much-needed mark on society, the world, and the church. In Fight Like a Girl, you will discover how to fully embrace and express the femininity God designed-and so highly values-in you.
hell no! your a HOT rib-bone!!!!
now get back in the kitchen and start making dinner!
jc :)
l.
From a pragmatic, economic standpoint, I can see why women make less. First, women just out of college are likely to be unmarried or just recently married. So their child-rearing years are ahead of them, and (based on historical evidence) it is anticipated that they will want to be mothers. Mothers tend to take more time off of work than fathers, which costs employers tons of money in downtime, retraining for and hiring temps, etc. Remember, though, these surveys often do not take into account, necessarily, women who, for example, are entreprenuers and business owners or women with graduate professional degrees. I also think there are a smaller number of women than men out there who are hard-core salespeople, and like I have said many times before, financial success in life depends largely on how well you sell - including yourself and your skills.
The business of life is the selling of your abilities to the highest bidder in return for compensation. Your goal is to secure a longterm commitment from a business to pay you for those skills. If you are not going to be a consistent producer (think women on maternity leave for 6-8 weeks or mothers leaving early to pick up a sick kid from school or a man that spends more time on the golf course than in the office, for example), then you do not have the leverage to command the higher compensation.
I don't believe it is a sexist thing so much anymore as it is a purely economic decision. If it were sexist and women were deliberately paid less than men, then there is a civil lawsuit waiting to happen.
Another significant factor is that men, up until 40 years ago, were the job market. The culture was very heavily male influenced which affected everything from time management and proportion to personal time, problem solving, and negotiations (sales approaches). Now women make up a significant portion of that market. While the job market culture is changing, you have to remember that the women who are management now were brought up in a man-culture job market. My experience is that many of these women make it worse for other women because they had to become overly aggressive (moreso than a man had to) to make their way in a man's world (and why should any other woman who is competeing for her job have it any easier). Men and women naturally sell differently, yet women must still sell in a male-influenced culture.
Does that make it right? Probably not. But, I am not sure one can say it is wrong either. While unpleasant, it looks like business to me. And business does not care about the morality of an issue - if there is a market, then there is a profit to be had. So if anyone wants to buck this status quo of women earning less, then it will require better salesmanship as I see it. And those women who do buck the trend are fantastic salespeople.
THink of it this way. Two different cars for exactly the same price and, based on your research and experience, one works consistently and reliably 90% of the time while the other works consistently and reliably 75% of the time, which one do you buy? Would your decision be tougher if the 75% car cost 10% less? 15%? 20%? Now what if they cost the same, but salesperson of the 75% car was significantly better than the one of the 90%?
Amen, Sista! I heard it on the news the other day, and they said it starts immediately out of college! I honestly don't understand it. I mean there are women out there trying to support their families, some of them single, and it just sucks that women cannot get equal pay. And most of those working women, work full-time at work and then come home and work full-time all night taking care of the house and kids--even if they have husbands. It's just not fair!
I have to say that if it is a conscious decision made by businesses to screw women over, then it is definitely wrong.
But I'm thinking that in most cases (and I may be wrong) it's that business owners realize that women are more likely to take time off work for children, and they will have to train new people to take the woman's position. This all costs time and money, and most businesses believe their job is not to accommodate women who may not have the loyalty to their company that they would desire, but rather to make money. Plain and simple. It's not awesome, but I think it might be what goes through business owner's minds when they don't hire/don't promote/don't pay women as much as men.
Oops, that was me, not Dan.
And double oops, I didn't read anyone else's post before I posted... I echoed Adam.
Hmm.
Sara . . . you and me *finger pointing back and forth between our heads* . . . it's like we share the same warped mind. Freaky. Maybe you should be "Dr. Valpo." Between you and Danimal, you two are gonna have wicked smart kids . . . who enjoy a good, controversial debate.
quick comment on the women in church thing: i read a book a decade ago that tackled the "women don't talk in church" crap (when we first started going to the Vineyard and---gasp---women were allowed to talk there). the book points out that back in jewish israel 35 A.D. or whatever, when paul was addressing how to "do church," women had to stand outside during services so if they asked their husband questions they'd have to yell. so wait til you get home and then ask the husband. makes sense WHEN YOU GET THE CONTEXT. apparently the stupid church i grew up in (and thousands of others unfortunately) didn't read up on ancient jewish division of sexes...they just took a misogynist verse and ran with it:) give me that microphone baby, i don't have a penis but i know how to talk!!!!!!!!!! (can i say penis on a christian blog?) lol
Of course, I'll have to drop out of the work force to care for my wicked smart kids, thus validating my employer's instinct to pay me less than my male counterparts.
;)
Oh, and I love the name "Danimal." That one is definitely sticking.
Pardon me, I have to go make the Danimal some lunch.
Love,
Dr. Valpo
Interesting topic,
I agree with Adam as well. I think that there are certainly prejudices against women in the working world, but I don't think that the difference in pay is a concerted attempt by the male "phallocracy" to keep women in their place. In response to Jenny's comment, there is a little more complexity to the issue of women speaking in church. It wasn't yelling in church that led Paul to make those statements, but rather the problem of women not understanding what was being taught and disrupting the service by talking and asking what was meant. Paul is saying that if they have something that they don't understand, don't disrupt the service but just wait till you get home and ask your husband to explain it. It is worth noting that Paul makes a similar ban on talking in church in 1 Corinthians 14 when he says that someone speaking in tongues who has no interpreter should keep silent. Basically he is saying that if you don't have anything to say that will benefit the congregation, then keep quiet. We can see in other parts of Scripture that Paul himself did not have a problem with women speaking in church since he makes mention of contemporary women teachers and prophetesses.
I would say that most of the restrictions on women in the church today are based more upon verses calling on women to submit to men both in marriage and in the church. But that's a pretty big topic for s single comment so I will elave that be for now.
there are actually LOTS of verses praising women for their contributions to the Kingdom...they were just ignored apparently in the church I was raised in:)
Oprah always says that being a mom is the hardest job in the world. It's harder than any job I have ever had. You don't clock in and clock out, you don't get paid vacations (not even after 18 years LOL), you don't pick up a pay check, there's definitely no insurance available......but you do get lots of hugs, kisses,and unconditional love something you don't get at work!!!
I get that at work. Then again, I work with my wife...
I got that at work, until my boss got arrested.
I get that at work, but i work with an affectionate autistic man with boundary issues.
i get that at work..... oh thats just me talking to myself in the mirror.
l.
Your mom gets that at work.
Oh yeah, I went there.
um..... er.... sara.....
my mom passed away.
:)
l.
Hmm,
Wasn't talking to you, Levi. But, gosh, thanks for embarrassing me on Beth's blog.
;)
lol!
l.
See levi, this is what happens when we let women talk, they just end up embarrassing themselves.
Women have always been under respected in the work force and have fought their way through glass ceilings to even be respected by their counterparts. This is NOT because women might leave to have children or quit their job this is because of something called the "good ole boy network"! Trust me, I have so much respect for my mom and other women like her who fought their way through this, so called, network. And put up with the harassment and other hardships putting her down all the while getting paid less than the dingus man in the cube next to her doing less work. She wasn't getting paid less because she might go home to have kids or take off work for her kids, she didn't get paid less because she was under qualified or under motivated, she got paid less simply because she was a woman. Woman in the workforce today have forgotten what our mothers went through to get us the jobs we have today. Trust me I have worked in a fairly male dominated profession of software sales and there is no way I would have gotten that job with out the “Pioneers”, like my mother, before me. Do not forget what these women went through to get you, oh the right to vote, get a job, and deserve the same pay as a man!
I don't usually read or comment on the blogs but I had to read this time when Amy told me about the comments about this subject.
Did some of you just go back to 1950? Man I am in blown away by your statements. I might have to cut my reply short because my husband might catch me on the computer!!! Levi and Bethany both know how terrified I would if he caught me!!!
Now back to the subject. When I started my first job at the phone company in 1976 I was in a "typical female role" working as a clerk in the office. I had Amy in 1978 and took her to work with me when she was 4 weeks old. Because I knew if I didn't return to work I would not have a job. And yes I made $4.00 an hour. I worked up to be the first female engineer in 1980. I made about $8.00 hour and all my male counterparts made over $16.00 per hour. Yes they had been there longer than me but when there was a problem in a switch I was the one to go figure it out. I had to work twice as hard for half the pay. Plus I received comments like "you know why you have this job? because we needed a token female". I know that was not the reason I got the job I also know I had to work like crazy and work smarter than any of the males. By 1990 I was in a senior management position with many of those males still engineers. The point being I worked hard and still had a family. I respect women that don't want to leave their children for work if they can afford to do that. But if you have the drive to go to work and have your family why should you be held back and be paid less because some male thinks you might not stay there. With job turnover rates as they are today a man is going to leave his job just as much as a women - if not more. According to what some of you are saying a woman is paid less because she might leave to have children. In all reality if you look at it the way some of you are a woman who is having children is more tied to her job because she needs it. IN this scenario a man is more of a risk of leaving a company than a women is because she needs the money for her family. And there is no one out that can tell me a women isn't going to do what it takes to ensure her children are taken care of.
The pay issue is not just a problem for white women. Black men get paid less then their white male counterparts. I wonder when Barrack or Hillary become president will they make less than the moron whose sets in the oval office now? Don't even get me started on what black women in the workforce.
These type of ideals just piss me off as a working mom to have fought my way up the corporate ladder so other like me (females) would have it easier and be treated as equals. And for some young females to take this for granted just blows me away. It's like people that don't vote but think they opinion about country.
Sue
I've always thought that that "It's just business" thing was a steaming load. It's just male. The worst proponents being the ones who can't even see the injustice when it comes to their mothers, sisters or wives. Penalized because you've got nothing swingin' is just wrong. Penalized because bringing life into the world takes more than two minutes of your time (three if the guy is good) is wrong.
I find blunt crudeness to be effective on occasion. After all, the glass ceiling is a disguised form of it.
Nobody is disagreeing that there is an unfortunate disparity in treatment. As for the disparity in pay, Sue, did you ever demand to be paid the same? If so, and they refused because of your sex, you would have had lawsuit. Title VII was passed in 1964, and was in effect in the 70s and 80s. If you didn't sue, then that's your own fault (your own choice). If you didn't demand more pay, then that's your own fault. You can blame the system all you want, and when your emotions are high it is common for us to do that. But the system is economic and is unconcerned with whether it is fair or not, unless the fairness results in an economic penalty or reward. You are not entitled to be paid by a private employer at the same rate as other people. It is up to you to prove your worth and use every bit of leverage to do so. You are not a victim. You are smart and driven. You can say all day that it's morally wrong, but you'll never get ahead that way. You simply must do what it takes. And whether you like it or not, the child-rearing thing (however antiquated you might see it to be) is the major hurdle women must overcome to prove they should be entitled to better financial treatment. It is also a well-known and documented fact that the lowest people on the totem pole in an organization (the assistants, the clerks, the receptionists) get the least respect in the organization even though their contributions are critical. And most disparities in pay and treatment occur on that level. Why? Because labor at that level is expendable. People that can do those jobs are a dime a dozen. To set yourself apart - male or female, races alike - you must show that you have something the others do not. You must make yourself vital. If you are vital, you command the respect and rewards you seek. You are never entitled to respect and rewards you did not earn. And respect and rewards cannot be demanded.
Again, while it's convenient to blame the old boys network, it simply does not exist in the way you think it did (like it may have 30 years ago). The issue is not as simple as white man oppression, but it is an easily idenifiable scapegoat.
Ok, So I completely disagree with you! You are looking at it from an economical perspective not a human perspective. For example. 3 years ago I worked in a sales group (sales: where your "worth" to the company is PLAINLY stated on your sales numbers. There was an opening in our group for a lead team position. I, of course, being the senior member of the sales team and never below number 2 in sales (out of 12) applied for the position. Along with three males from the group and one African American male. I did not get the position. A male got it and one of the oldest members of the group but not the most talented. He was not a top producer, he did not know the system. He simply got the lead position because he was part of a white male good ole boy network. I'm sorry you are completely wrong if you believe that women do not get raises or positions because they are not driven for these positions. And by the way, the laws, do not protect against this type of thing! I took the matter to HR ad they of course had a perfectly good explanation.. My manager was put into the position to make the decisions. Regardless, the company divided and my manager made sure to secure positions for the rest of the guys on the team including a black man and left the other two woman in the positions even after they had specifically asked to be put in for inside sales positions. Sales is a type of job that is based on numbers! PERIOD! Rewards can be demanded, Why do you think I left the company, rewards were not being granted! However, to sit there and say Woman get paid less because they are willing to settle for lesser paying jobs and do not ask to be rewarded is ridiculous! And the network does exist! Trust me! You can never truly fit in as a woman, even female executives fight to get into it. How, as a man, can you say it doesn't exist? You have never been at the opposite end of it so you wouldn't know!
As a woman, am I allowed to say it doesn't exist?
Or is my opinion irrelevant because I'm just a secretary?
;)
Amy,
i think you need to read what Adam said more carefully. There is a lot that was said so let me try to break it down starting from your last comments.
1) You said, "How, as a man, can you say it doesn't exist? You have never been at the opposite end of it so you wouldn't know!"
First of all, he didn't say that it doesn't exist. he said "it simply does not exist in the way you think it did." There is a huge difference. I think what he is saying (and correct me if I'm wrong Adam) is that you are painting with broad strokes and making the male dominated business field into a much more intentionally malicious (key word here is intentionally) groups than it is. There are numerous factors that go into this so let's not start (or continue rather) casting male business men as caped villains with handlebar mustaches who are tying the female workforce to the train tracks.
Also, let's not start with this whole "you're not a woman/minority/parent/middle child/recovering drug addict/etc so you wouldn't understand" thing. We could easily turn around and say "well you're not a man so you don't know what it's like for us to have to deal with women in the work place." And I would like to point out that you are presuming the intentions of the men you claimed to have wronged you. You can't have it both ways.
2)You said, "You are looking at it from an economical perspective not a human perspective." Welcome to capitalism. Adam is not trying to say that the behavior of companies is right or wrong, he is just saying it is what it is. If you want to get a job with the human perspective, then get into the non-profit arena. In social work we are very concerned about making sure that everyone is treated well and equally. But at the same time, most non-profit organizations are running are failing business plans and are hemorrhaging money. That's why a lot of non-profits fail or end up bleeding financial resources dry and then moving to the next. It would be nice if all companies were concerned with being ethical, but that is not going to work in capitalism. If a company figures out it can make some extra money by not accommodating certain people, they are going to do it and everyone else will follow or else go under.
3) In regards to your experience, I am sorry if that happened but it is anecdotal and we can never be certain what the intentions were of anyone involved. I don't doubt that it may very well have been exactly as you said it was, but I know several women whose experience in the workplace has been the opposite so we are forced to look at the big picture.
What it comes down to is that companies will look to do what makes the most money with the least amount of effort. Considering the fact that the economy was run almost entirely by men until the last few decades of course it's going to resist change that may slow down production. As Adam pointed out and I think everyone would agree, there are different ways that men and women deal with things (I am not saying better or worse, just different). So if women are coming into the workplace, things need to be said differently and looked at differently to accommodate. No one is going to do that if they don't have to simply because they don't want to use more energy or resources than they have to. This is companies (especially larger ones) are reluctant to change to newer technologies even if they one they are using is antiquated or even new but dysfunctional.
Is there sexism in the workplace? Absolutely! Is there favoritism? Of Course! But I can guarantee that for every business man who looks mistreats an employee because she's a women there are a dozen who would hire a woman and stab their best friend in the back if it meant a pay off in the end.
And by the way, Dan, you should know by now not to insult your wife. She has methods of retaliation not yet known by humankind.
Maybe they choose the less qualified man for the job based on character alone. Perhaps they thought your mind set was immature and that you would not be a respected member of the managment. Managment is something earned...it's a priveledge...not something that is demanded or even owed. You could be the #1 sales member, but it doesn't mean you'd be a good supervisor. Since you were a top sales person and he wasn't...maybe they didn't want sales to drop due to your new job load and decided to take a weaker sales man who obviously had the time to take on new tasks. Just a thought. Sometimes we need to step back and look at the whole picture and not just instantly point fingers about how we were wrong...that's a very selfish philosophy!
I would like to know how many of you out there with opinions on men and women in the workforce have business degrees or have actually worked in management/sales/etc. Positions that you have to be aggressive to get! I would like to point out that if companies hired strictly for economical reasons then wouldn't people nearing 65 who make 100k a year be fired for a new college grad who will take the job for 50k a year. Yes, this does happen but not as often as it would if it was purely based on economics. Also, if you think a job is not based on who you know...you are insane! You can ask anyone who has worked a legitimate job at a legitimate company (or a recruiter) and 9 times out of 10 they got the job based on a friend, college buddy or networking. I graduated from a large all women's college and the first thing out of business school we were taught is that we were immediately at a disadvantage. When we walk into an interview we don't have a football/basketball team at our alma mater that we can converse with the hiring manager about. Also, we were told to learn to play golf! Deals are made and closed on the golf course..and in the bar room I might add. We were also advised, if we didn't already, keep up with sports, to learn it.. Why do you think our professors went through all of this with us! It was to teach us real world! It was to help us get a leg up on the good ole boy network. You say it doesn't exist.. you are out and out WRONG! And Dan, from what you're saying if women are getting paid less because it's economical for the company then why isn't the workforce comprised of mostly women?? I would think if I can pay them less wouldn't I only hire them? I'll tell you the workforce is not mostly women, your argument doesn't hold water. Men would be replaced left and right. Also, anonymous, if you knew anything about business, you would know that you have to be selfish to get ahead.
By the way, anyone who doesn't respect the receptionist, clerk, and secretary there is no way you are getting anywhere in that company. These people are the backbone of business and they open the door for you! As any Sales Person or good business executive will tell you...treat the secretary right and you will get the doors open to get to the decision maker and get the deal!
Lots said. Amy, you said:
"Also, if you think a job is not based on who you know...you are insane! You can ask anyone who has worked a legitimate job at a legitimate company (or a recruiter) and 9 times out of 10 they got the job based on a friend, college buddy or networking."
Right on! That's my point! This is what I am talking about - Sell yourself better than the next person. That is what your professors were talking about! Know your product and know your audience. You know this being in sales.
Your job situation is awful. I don't blame you for being angry. Clearly, they do not value you the way you think they should. Time to dust off the old resume and find somewhere that does. With your stellar sales record and corresponding rolodex of contacts, get out there and sell yourself! Don't get angry about it. I have seen too many good people hurt their health and their careers in dwelling on problems that can be solved.
You also said:
"I would like to point out that if companies hired strictly for economical reasons then wouldn't people nearing 65 who make 100k a year be fired for a new college grad who will take the job for 50k a year."
Happens all the time. They call it downsizing, voluntary layoffs, early retirement, outsourcing. In fact, that is why companies outsource to India. That is also why federal and state governments enacted legislation to protect people 45 and over from discrimination in employment.
You also said:
"It was to help us get a leg up on the good ole boy network. You say it doesn't exist.. you are out and out WRONG!"
That's wrong. I didn't say that. Dan characterized what I said properly. You also said:
"And Dan, from what you're saying if women are getting paid less because it's economical for the company then why isn't the workforce comprised of mostly women?? I would think if I can pay them less wouldn't I only hire them?"
Fact is, companies hire a mixture because there is a mixture of qualified employees. And they try to get the best talent at the cheapest rates. For some companies, hiring only minorities is the most economical thing to do with many federal business loan programs protecting minority owned and operated businesses.
And I am a lawyer who owns my own law firm, by the way. I have been a manager at lawfirms since I started my career in Washington DC. Part of my practice is in employment law, specifically discrimination. I have been promoted over less qualified people (minorities and white alike) and I have been passed over by less qualified people (who were minorities and white alike).
And Amy, Anonymous (you should really use your name) has a point. Maybe your bosses didn't see you as a team player or maybe not sufficiently mature enough to handle running the team (which would explain why they hired the veteran). We don't know the facts of your situation other than your side, like Dan pointed out. But Dan said it best, there is no overtly malicious intent by men to keep women down. Maybe some men do that, but that's an anomaly. It's not an unspoken corporate policy.
As to the secretary thing. You are speaking about getting past someone else's secretary. Dealing with your own employees and managees (is that a word?) is different. The relationship is completely different, the dynamic of which is more superior/subordinate in nature. If not, then you have the support staff doing the job of the employee being supported (who is supposed to be generating income). This cannot work. Like have a lineman decide he wants to play quarterback.
You can disagree with me, that's ok. I am more concerned that you, in your situation, see a way to find a better place to work. If you are unhappy and cannot find a way to navigate that system so you can be happy, then move on for your own sake.
i hire women if they are hot.....
i like the view......
I am just tryin got help the cause... ya know!
:)
l.
If anon is who I think she is, her resume of leadership would blow all of us out of the water. Leave the whale alone.
Also, I'm in a sales industry built directly from the hardwon experience of a single mom hitting the glass ceiling repeatedly through the 50's and 60's. She was disgusted that although more qualified and gifted in the needed areas, men were consistently promoted past her. Yes, it was the 60's with backward thinking in many areas.
She eventually took her business to become the #1 sales leader in her industry, she became one of Forbes top 100 entrepeneurs of the century as well as the #1 Female entrepeneur of the century.
Her business plan is taught at Harvard Law school and revolutionized business because it valued the unique skills of the "weaker sex" (mind out of the gutter...), while prioritizing family and OMILORD!! spirituality. It's taught not just because it was and is revolutionary- but because it works. People continue to be a part of her business because there is still the same complaint - albeit less than 40 years ago.
What's hilarious is that skills are skills, but the flavors that both women and men bring to the job ARE different. I just want them to be equally embraced. Perhaps empowering money-making in innovative fashion, much in the same way working from home (DO you remember when this was nouveau?) shifted our ability to earn AND be at home is where I'm mentally meandering.
Also, there are driven, aggressive dynamite women just as there are men. I will always struggle with the womb argument. I understand the premise, but any parent understands that a child provides motivation to work. And work hard. Whether father or mother.m I'm also curious whether the stats regarding men and women in the workforce were compiled with folks in there 20's or those in their 30's + - anybody know?
Levi, if the women you work with are "hot", I am freaking scared.
Yes, you may say penis or it's alter ego "senip" on my blog. We all wear big-kid under-roos.
Amy said: "I would like to know how many of you out there with opinions on men and women in the workforce have business degrees or have actually worked in management/sales/etc."
Since I'm a secretary, obviously I have never experienced the heights of glory in the sales field, therefore I couldn't possibly have a valid opinion on women in the workplace. ;)
Adam, people usually use "anonymous" when they have something to say but not the stones to say it. ;)
Come on, Anonymous, we'll still love you! Reveal yourself!
B-roo, you hit the nail on the head. It is likely these surveys do take into account women who leave the workforce and return both part and full-time due to child-bearing and rearing and possibly even women who work in the trades (a 95%+ male profession). Comparing the resulting salary average of these women with their male counterparts will definitely show a disparity. We may, in fact, be debating over flawed data.
And as to the "womb" thing, it is true that children are a great motivation to work. But motivation does not produce income for the employer. Actual time at work does, and children detract from time at work. There's no way around that. If one works harder to make up for that downtime, then one will likely see financial benefits. Of course, there will always be employers who will find holes in your work schedule that you could fill with more work. And I've worked for them. Fact is, if there is a predictable chance that you will take more time from work than another worker, you will be valued less (assuming all other things equal) than that other worker.
And Mrs. Sara, don't let a person casting stones make you feel bad about your job. You are earning your way and taking no charity. There is integrity in doing what it takes to survive and make a living, even if you hate what you do. In five years, your life will be very different. You and Danimal have that to look forward to. Mark those words (and I'm not prophesying, in case one wants to start a thread on that on Levi's blog). ;)
I just gotta say this: It's simple, God has a place for everyone!! It is up to us to find our place through Him... things, in general, will never be fair in this world. There will always be some outside perspective or unfair practice that touches are lives. I don't know, I guess I am just not bothered by all that stuff because it's all about money and things that money can buy, and I know my reward is in Heaven, not here. My husband and I have worked hard all of our lives and we have made much less and have much less than a lot of people who have less education and easier jobs; people who cheat on their taxes and never get caught; people who rip off their customers and do not care.
These people have more than we will ever have HERE, but I don't really care because HERE is not where eternity is.
There will always be some sort of injustice going on here....Thank God the injustice will not go on forever...because this state of injustice will not be known in eternity!
"And Mrs. Sara, don't let a person casting stones make you feel bad about your job."
Adam, I don't need help to feel bad about my job (I hate it), but it doesn't make me feel bad about MYSELF. Trust me, someone would have to try MUCH harder than that to hurt my feelings on a blog. ;) And no, that's not an invitation to try. LOL.
I may not have dealt with the "good old boys" keeping me down, but I have dealt with a good deal of sexual harassment, during which, if I do say so myself, I kicked some major ass. ;) So nobody can tell me I haven't struggled in the workforce.
I certainly DO hope my life looks different in five years. ;) Thanks for the encouragement (which is all that "prophesy" is half the time, anyway! LOL).
The only reason I sign in as anonymous is due to the fact I don't usually respond on blogs. But I do put my name on the bottom. Not sure who the other anonymous was on this blog. Anyway, Miss Sara - I think you have taken was Amy said wrong. If fact I think she was trying to say the most important people in an organization are Secretaries. If it wasn't for the Secretary the executive would not get anything completed. I have always felt Secretaries were under paid and under appreciated. Where Amy was coming from is the issues when women or even men are trying to break into a field that is normally held by the opposite sex. And then when they are treated with little or no respect and do not get the promotions because of that. This applies equally to males trying to be a secretary or a nurse.
Dr. Seattle - you said "Again, while it's convenient to blame the old boys network, it simply does not exist in the way you think it did (like it may have 30 years ago). The issue is not as simple as white man oppression, but it is an easily idenifiable scapegoat." WRONG!!! I am a senior executive with over 30 years global experience I have run major organizations and yet when I recently went to work for a start-up bio-tech I found a glass ceiling like I have never encountered before. I finally had to leave because I was given no respect and it was due to being a women. And with my experience in workplace I recognize discrimination when I see it.
Dan - you are but a callow youth - stifle.
Levi - I agree with you eye candy is very important in an office - I'm thinking about hiring a George Clooney look-a-like, or Sydney Crosby or any other hunky Hockey Player as my private secretary!!! I'm not sure what my partner will think. But that's his problem. he he!
Bethany - You go girl, I'm so proud of you. Women business owners rock,
Sue
"Miss Sara - I think you have taken was Amy said wrong. If fact I think she was trying to say the most important people in an organization are Secretaries."
Sue,
First of all, I didn't take what Amy said wrong. I know what she was trying to say, and I was merely making a joke about it.
Secondly, I don't need to be coddled by people who want to convince me of how precious I am and that my job is the most important. I understand these people may have good intentions, but they insult both my intelligence and the hard work of my superiors when they say that mine is the most important position.
Finally, Sue, name-calling hardly adds anything to this conversation. This is not my blog, and I can't speak for Beth, but I'm relatively sure that the purpose of these discussions is not to insult each other, but to understand each other. Perhaps it would be better to leave the "immature kid" comments at home... that is, if you're coming here for an adult conversation.
hehe. It seems kind of funny that someone who is going on and on about discrimination based on gender would be so quick to discriminate based on age. Notice how Sue does not say that I am wrong or point out problems with what I have said. Rather she just dismisses me because I am young and calls me a "callow youth". Wait, let me correct myself; I am BUT a callow youth (a phrasing she no doubt picked up in a business course on "How to Sound Purty Without Actually Having Any Content") implying that I am nothing more than a callow youth. Imagine if I were to respond to someone I was disagreeing with by saying "you are but a woman." Doesn't seem right now does it? Since we are on the subject of the business world, let us remember that employers are not allowed to discriminate based on age, so it seems like you are being a bit of a hypocrite, Sue. So I would like to thank you for your contributions to this post including the lovely new glass ceiling that you just installed (it is quite lovely).
Tongue firmly pressed against cheek,
Dan
First of all, Dan, the person you are referring to, is one of the least Hypocritical people you will ever meet! I'm pretty sure what they are trying to say, in a nice way, is that you are just wrong and it is based on your inexperience! All you have done is pick out pieces of everything people have said and used it or bent the words to please your argument about the opposition's opinion. For example, you say there is no good ole boy's network, but have yet to prove, at least to me, any proof behind that comment. Every time I have challenged you on this, you are so demeaning in your words by making it sound like I don't understand what your saying. Maybe you need to put in in little words for this little lady! Also, your argument, again, holds no water. You say women make less because they might leave, etc..and the reason they make less is because it is economical to the company. Well, you are yet to answer my challenge of...If woman make less why wouldn't it be more economical to hire only woman? (you can see my whole comment on this above). I see you have conveniently picked apart every aspect of everything else in my comment, but missed the "meat". I think that yes, times are easier for women in the workforce than it was 30 years ago, however, we can not forget what it was like for women back then. We can not let men revert back to that way of thinking. Just because it's easier and more fair now doesn't mean we can forget what other women went through to get us there.. IT's very frustrating when people (who have never experienced it) say it doesn't exist.. It's like saying, its all better now, so lets forget about the past. The only way to not have history repeat itself, is to be watchful of the present and remind the future!
Wow! Why can't I have debates like this on my blog. It sounds like it has been sooo much fun. LOL! Way to go Bethany...
Levi-You are just wrong. he..he...
ok people... play nice.
l.
Amy,
Before I say anything else, my last post was joking! That's why I signed it "tongue firmly in cheek" to avoid any confusion. I will try to make that more clear next time (maybe with a smiley face, or a winking smiley, something fun).
After looking over your comment several times, I am still confused. I'm not sure what comments of mine your are reading, or if there is another thread somewhere with a Dan on it that you are confusing for me but it certainly doesn't look like you are responding to my comments. So let me clear up what i have and have not said.
1) you said, "you say there is no good ole boy's network, but have yet to prove, at least to me, any proof behind that comment."
There is a perfectly good reason that I have not "proved any proof" behind that comment; because I didn't say it! We have been over this already and I don't know how it can be said any plainer. No one here has said that the good ole boys network doesn't exist. The closest thing that anyone said to this was when Adam said, "it simply does not exist IN THE WAY YOU THINK IT DID." I'm sorry I realize you asked for little words, but I can't remember how to do italics in html so big words will have to do.
2)you said, "Well, you are yet to answer my challenge of...If woman make less why wouldn't it be more economical to hire only woman?"
I haven't answered this because Adam answered it already (and did so pretty well I might add) and since your question seemed to be responding to Adam's comments more that mine, I didn't feel a need to respond.
3)you said, "It's very frustrating when people (who have never experienced it) say it doesn't exist.. It's like saying, its all better now, so lets forget about the past."
Yes, that is very frustrating. It's a good thing that no one here has said that. In fact I am relieved to see that even the people who disagree with you (myself included) have all acknowledged that sexism does happen in the workplace today.
4)You said, "All you have done is pick out pieces of everything people have said and used it or bent the words to please your argument."
What argument?? I have only two post that talk about gender inequality in the workplace. The first one only has two lines that basically say that yes, sexism exists but it is not some large scale malicious effort to keep women down. My other post was just clarifying things that Adam had said and that you had misread/misunderstood. Adam has said a great deal more on this issue and has made very convincing arguments (and is not a callow youth to boot!). How did i become the poster child for your opposition?
Look, here is my opinion in a nutshell. There are definitely gender inequalities in the modern workplace. But characterizing all inequalities as the result of some male conspiracy to keep women down is going to do nothing but make matters worse. There are a great deal of variables involved in this issue and I would say ignoring them (or simply painting them over with such broad strokes as your comments seem to) does as much damage as ignoring the problem exists at all. There it is, do with it what you will. Finally, keep in mind that i don't take online discussions very seriously and most of my remarks are said in jest.
Dan
P.S. I still think your mom is a hypocrite. Am I joking, you decide ;)
Yes, and in our passion to think and process - no throwing sand in the sandbox - We're all getting dirty and not building the castle.
Tammy - you know I love you, but I disagree with your premise. $ is placed on value in a secular world. My irritation is with the devaluation of women. Without thinking, discussion and action things WILL NOT CHANGE. Otherwise there can be an option to simply take care of oneself and the immediate circular needs - I want to love and help in a broader sense.
Is it OK to prostitute young children?
Is it OK to allow the circumcision of women in Africa?
Yes there is global injsutice and there alwasy will be, but I believe our responsibility is to find our place in relieving suffering - in being a light.
Generally that takes funding. $ is a means to and end, not the end goal. You know that I have lived in poverty and now in some comfort. I can do both. But I get much more accomplished with cash.
Thoughts...?
you know what.
not only are you freaking HOT!!!!! your pretty damn smart too! HOLY CRAP! who knew??!!
just kidding. i've always known.........
l.
WOW! That was a fun read with my morning coffee! I dont get a ton of ton on my computer but that was well worth my time.
Good Discussion, lots of good points.
*Sara barely suppresses a grin.*
Awww..Beth you know I love you too and it's okay if you disagree me. I agree with what you said in your reply to me. At the same time, I stand by what I said too. Actually I never said anything about it being okay to prostitute children or circumsize women, of course I do not think that is okay. The only thing that I was really referring to was the women in the workplace thing that was being discussed. My basic and only point really was that men making more money than me for the same work doesn't bother me...but I didn't say it shouldn't bother anyone else. My husband, an electrician, is making less money than another electrician who is ripping people off and it doesn't really bother me. I guess it's not that it doesn't bother me AT ALL it's just that I won't live bitterly over it or give into anger over it or have a bitter or angry discussion with someone about it. People are saying mean things to each other here they are being meanly sarcastic and calling names....yikes! Sorry that bothers me in discussion maybe I shouldn't let it bother me though.
Concerning the other things you mentioned, I want to love and help in a broader sense too; that is why I took my college education and for the last 8 years have used it and my life experience to work, without pay, at a non-profit Christian organization that assists the needy and poor. I don't do that because I don't need or want to be paid for my skill and knowledge, believe me I could use the money to pay off some debt. But I do it because that is the place that God has put me I trust Him and I am satisfied and blessed....but that is all just a personal choice of mine.
My comment was just in general...I didn't say the types of things that were being discussed shouldn't be discussed, or that no action should be taken. I am sorry if my comment mislead you to think that I think it is okay for women to be devalued because I don't think that. Asking me if I think it is okay to prositute children and circumsize women well that kind of hurt my feelings, you know me better than that. I frequently pray against those kinds of things and pray for the children and women that it is happening to. If I said anything that made you think that I thought those kind of things are anywhere near okay, please tell me what it was so I can be accountable and correct it. When I made my comment those types of injustices were no where in my thoughts...so I wasn't referring to those types of things.
I have to say this too because I feel that it is important....thank you so much for telling me that you love me while you addressed my post...that is so important to speak to people like that in times of disagreement and discussion. That part of your character will hugely bless your children as they grow and you begin to discuss more and more things with them!!
Since your original post ended in "I'm not just a rib-bone folks" I wanted to share this with you. I have a plaque hanging on my wall; I've had it since about 1992. I was being very abused in a relationship, when someone gave me this plaque. But anyway when I read your last line of your post it reminded me of it. It says:
Woman
was made from the rib of man
she was not created
from his head-
to top him
nor from his feet-
to be stepped upon.
She was made from his side-
to be equal to him:
from beneath his arm-
to be protected by him:
near his heart-
to be loved by him.
Anonymous
Thought you might enjoy that!
i don't think she was directing that comment toward you Tammy, i think she was meaning in the general sense of the conversation. least thats how i took it.
l.
Tammy, I was laughing pretty hard (at myself) when I read your last comment because when I first read it, I thought you wrote you had a "plague" hanging on your wall.
Because that would suck. I hate plagues.
I had a plague on my wall back in ought-three.
That was a hard year.
holy crap, 56 comments? what a thrill to be #57. huh. my life is alarmingly dull when i can write honestly "what a thrill to be #57."
Yah, Tammie I was writing in general because I knew you would understand having done what you have - I suppose I wanted to open up the devaluation with you having a personal foundation.
Reading the paper this morning in liberal Seattle, I came across a great article with statistics written by a woman about the discrepancies in remuneration between men and women in the workplace. While I appreciate and respect Amy's and Sue's experiences (which roots their opinion on the matter), I think this columnist makes my point much more eloquently than I do. The most telling stat in the article is the fact that unmarried, childless women between 27 and 33 make on average 98% of the salary of men in the same age group. Just some more food for thought...
Here's the link:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003701898_goodman11.html
Some of the link got cut off. Try this:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
html/opinion/2003701898_goodman11
.html
Now THAT"S what I want to hear. The specifics really help. Dr Acc ;) you are a wealth of resource.
By the way, watched the Invisible Children dvd and bawled into my coffee. Wow. Levi has yet to watch it and then we are discussing what our next step could be...So incredible.
The IC dvd is intense. I was fine until they were talking to those two boys who were discussing their brother and one just starts crying out of the blue. Then seeing all those kids piled on top of one another in the basement of that building. "Wow" is really inadequate to describe the situation, I've found. Glad to hear you got the dvd and that I have your correct address.
A little update on my little brother and his work with IC - he is touring with Fall Out Boy this summer on behalf of IC, manning a booth at the shows and spreading word at the after parties. This, by the way, at the request of Pete Wentz, the lead singer of Fall Out Boy. By the way, last week's episode of Veronica Mars featured a storyline about child soldiers in Uganda and Invisible Children. Several cast members are actively involved in IC.
Yep that's where I lost it and just caved the rest of the way. Cedar watched most of it with me until the violence aspects. He was engrossed. Ever since Katrina where he prayed every night for those who had had "no homes no food and no family", we've tried to gently incorporate the idea that the world is biiiig and we are living with a lot. Thankfulness. Y'know?
Does anyone remember the first time they recognized $ being important to purchase something they desired?
Post a Comment