Shared publicly  - 
[American Voices]
"C’mon, everyone knows women don’t like nice paychecks. They’re only interested in salaries that are hard to get."

Julie Speer
Systems Analyst
Mandi Howell's profile photoNichele NINI Juliano's profile photomarcos gonzález's profile photojen eichmeyer's profile photo
If you give them good salaries, they are only going to get all complacent and then where would the blow jobs come from?
No surprise there. Being that I'm raising up two daughters, I'd want them to have equal opportunity to receive higher pay based on their work production -- and not receive lower pay just because they're not men.
Matt C
Conservatives: perpetuating the female gold-digger lifestyle for generations to come.
It isn't hard to get salaries they want it's the salaries that take sex to get more pay and not working hard to get it.
It's not the size of the check, it's how you use it.
Paying women 77% of what men earn means that businesses can hire 23% more women.  Stop trying to tie the hands of the job creators.
+Matt C it was obviously a play done on the logic of conservatives.
Yeah why can't conservatives be classy like John Edwards?
Great. Give women the vote, and look what happens.
The Onion is on a roll today! Onion baguette!
Um, except if you research this, you find women don't make less than men...and in cases where they do, there are a number of things that contribute to the fact (don't pursue the dangerous jobs that pay more, take time off for children, etc...), it's not because "they're women"....

There was a study where they followed men and women in the same career field, and when the women stayed in the job for the same amount of time as the men (no breaks for family, worked same hours, etc...) they were actually making slightly MORE than the men.
yeah, give the ladies the vote. as they are a majority of the population, they'll make sure every single elected official is a woman, and stuff like this won't ever happen again? or not?
+Steve Broome Newt is classier than John. He cheated on two wives, one was cancer ridden and the other with multiple sclerosis.
Wow +Dennis Sinclair Sr. I guess when I was making a third less than the guys who were total idiots at a major IT firm, it must have really been because I don't pursue the same dangerous job of playing golf with the manager that they did.
I know there are going to be individual cases, and I can't comment on your particular case without knowing your experience, their experience, time worked, etc... so I won't.

When I am talking about dangerous jobs, I am talking about taking overseas jobs or high risk jobs that a lot of women don't want to deal with, but those skew men's earnings. 

Are there times when women get screwed by the "good ol' boys club"?  Of course there are, but it happens to men who don't play the stupid games too...

I apologize for bringing facts to this post....
"There’s only one problem with all of this: the wage gap is a myth. In point of fact, women tend to take jobs that are less lucrative, work less hours, and take more time off than men. There are many reasons that women earn less than men on average: men choose more dangerous jobs that pay more, choose uncomfortable jobs that pay more, work weekends and evenings more, specialize in high-stress areas of business.

The Department of Labor has itself pointed out the reasons for the fact that women make less money than men, on average: a greater percentage of women work part-time, leave work to bear children, and value family-friendly jobs. As Charles E. James, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal Contract Compliance, wrote back in 2009, “the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and … the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

The proof is in the pudding: as Steve Tobek has pointed out, “Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it’s independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women.”

Actually, in some areas women are at a significant advantage over men. The unemployment rate among women is lower than that for men. And as Carrie Lukas pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, “In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts.”
Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts. Perhaps the most compelling — and potentially damning — data of all to suggest that gender has an influence comes from a 2008 study in which University of Chicago sociologist Kristen Schilt and NYU economist Matthew Wiswall examined the wage trajectories of people who underwent a sex change. Their results: even when controlling for factors like education, men who transitioned to women earned, on average, 32% less after the surgery. Women who became men, on the other hand, earned 1.5% more.

Read more:,8599,1983185,00.html#ixzz1x3g6w2TO
I'm still trying to figure out what kind of secretary jobs are more dangerous than other ones.    Perhaps men are more likely to use a chair that can tip back?
The secretary job on the crab boats is pretty dangerous. Your office chair just slides all over the place.
You are still not accounting for the fact that many of those women take time off for various reasons, and also tend not to spend as much time at work (often because of family, which is not a bad thing...and I am mainly referring to working beyond the normal work week, not skipping out on normal work hours), but those things DO affect the numbers.

You can also ignore my very specific comments on what types of dangerous jobs they take, but that is your prerogative =)
+Dennis Sinclair Sr. you never cited your so called facts.  So I have no idea where you got them and whether they have any legitimacy.

Because you know if you have any experience doing actual analysis, that citing your 'facts' tends to raise your pay if you are a guy.

And bother, I did address that 'dangerous jobs thing, since the census study was talking about the same jobs, not overseas bomb detectors compared to school teacher jobs.
If you read the entire post, The Department of Labor was one of the sources (there was another official, but I don't remember off the top of my head).  You didn't indicate if the study you were quoting accounted for the various reasons the gap often exists, if it does.
No URL dear.  That's a cite.  It's not my job to check your 'facts'.

Any reasons would simply be assumptions unless you did some experiments which in data of this type, is extremely hard to do.

The sex change operation study is pretty damn damning.
So these men who became women stayed at their same company/job and had their pay cut because now they were women?  Or they went to a new company where they had less seniority and were basically starting over, so they were making less (just like anyone else would be that changed jobs/companies).  I would need a link to your study so I could look at how it was conducted and what was taken into account.

If I see that you crashed into a pole on a perfectly straight road, do I automatically assume you are a horrible driver?  You might be; but maybe the road is near a neighborhood, and a child chasing a ball bolted in front of you and you swerved to miss the child and hit something you normally would have avoided.  The point is, sometimes there are reasons things look the way they do.
Um, are you really trying to tell me you think a study should be based on data rather than one anecdotal story?

Really?  You had to write that out because you weren't sure or something?  Do you know how studies are done?

Here's some more info
You might expect that anybody who has had a sex change, or even just cross-dresses on occasion, would suffer a wage cut because of social stigmatization. Wrong, or at least partly wrong. Turns out it depends on the direction of the change: the study found that earnings for male-to-female transgender workers fell by nearly one-third after their gender transitions, but earnings for female-to-male transgender workers increased slightly.
The study, published in the B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, was based on survey data the authors collected from 64 transgender workers. The authors, Kristen Schilt at the University of Chicago and Matthew Wiswall at New York University, theorize male-to-female workers tend to be penalized and female-to-male workers modestly rewarded because of anti-woman, rather than just anti-transgender, discrimination.
“My transition went extremely smoothly,” one female-to-male, blue-collar worker told the researchers. “I was shocked at how smooth. No one even talks about it and it had no effect on my pay. If anything, I have been better accepted at work because people don’t see me as a [slur for a lesbian] like before.” By contrast, a male-to-female person in a similar job said she was laid off from her 10-year management position for having a “bad attitude.”
The authors also note that their findings, while limited because of the small number of survey participants, can shed some light on traditional explanations for why women over all earn less than their male counterparts. Given the results of this paper, the gender pay gap may be due more to discrimination than to how children are socialized or how much women invest in their careers versus their families.
This isn’t the first article I’ve seen that looked at the pre- and post-transition careers of a transgender employee.
Ben Barres, a female-to-male transgender neuroscientist at Stanford, found that his work was more highly valued after his gender transition. “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today,” a colleague of his reportedly said, “but then his work is much better than his sister’s.”
Dr. Barres, of course, doesn’t have a sister in academia.

Now, you want to address that supposed study by the Reach Advisors group?  I don't see that this study compared job to job, just that in one age group childless women on average made more than childless men because they were more likely to have college educations.  Not exactly what we are talking about, now is it?

And I suspect the reason that women business owners that make less than men because every hobby/business is being included rather than businesses meant to support the family. 

I could go on, but I have things to do rather than tear apart something you should have done first yourself.
Yes, I understand how studies are done, do you?  Because if you do, you should understand they are often done poorly, and can be (quite easily) made to say whatever you want them to.  While the extreme feminists are all arguing there is this huge gap, and people on the other side saying their isn't, I figure (that like most things) the truth is probably a mix of the two.  Hmm, let's see: one person claimed she was fired after her sex change because of a bad attitude?  That is definitive?  Maybe she did have a bad attitude; I know that is crazy, but that is hardly "hard data".  You appear to be an intelligent woman, and are at least making an effort at laying out an opposing argument (which I applaud, because most people don't now a days), but being intelligent you should also understand that most things are not as obvious as they seem in life.
Then you do a damn poor job of communicating.  What you wanted to say is studies can be done poorly, please give me a link to the one you referenced so I can see.

And you should have given me a link I asked for.

And you aren't doing such a great job laying out an argument.  You should have done the leg work on your own data yourself.

In this transgender study did they control for whether male-to-female changers were taking estrogen and female-to-male changers were taking testosterone, I wonder?  I think there are far too many variables in this kind of study to extrapolate a national trend and be able to definitively argue for discrimination.  I  think there is always likely to be a difference in any field where testosterone is a factor.  With business in general, where aggression is rewarded, you're likely to see a male-favor.  In service industries where aggression is counterproductive you're likely to see a female favor.  Certainly in some industries women will be discriminated against by culture or by intent.  And in others, women get paid leave for maternity, which greatly outstrips paternity leave, essentially an anti-male discrimination.  The only reasonable studies will demonstrate pair-matched controls looking at individual industries in isolation.  In that way one would likely see female preference in some, male preference in others.
What we need is more women in government. Just kidding. Please don't do that...
So +Franchot van Slot do you think that secretarial jobs are service?  or aggression rewarded?  because the census study showed that men were paid 30 percent more in those positions. 
+Kate Childers I would consider it part of the service industry, although one could argue in certain niche areas, aggression may be more rewarded here too.  Still, I would prefer to see pair-matched controls.  Census data, I think is a very broad swipe to make a direct claim for discrimination.  I think it is likely there (I think it would be hard for it not to be), but I think any movement to change it will be hamstrung by these false studies, which are easily rejected.  I think hiring choices would ideally be included in a study as well.  My suspicion is that a young man will be chosen after a young woman most of the time for retail/service type positions.  And then for the man that does make it in those positions, is it because he was aggressive enough to get the job in the face of the uphill battle, translating into also being aggressive enough to seek the promotion/higher salary, etc.  There are too many variables I think and suppositions like this one can be made all day until thoughtful independent analysis is done.
@ Kate,
although i can't comment upon American studies it is that case that in Britain gender pay stats are shrouded in a confusion, rarely taking into account hours worked, seniority, childcare arrangements and maternity leave etc etc... from the looks of the studies you cite here it appears they have made the same errors. in the UK i have failed to find any particularly convincing evidence of a gender pay gap in qualitative or quantitative research (not to mention my own experience) - in fact in an ONS citizenship survey from 2009-10 less than 2% of participants reported having experienced gender based discrimination in the workplace, with roughly equal numbers of men and women making the claim.

the pay gap, taken crudely from the POV of 'full-time' and 'part time' wages, also shows big shifts in the favour of women in the UK: men between the age of 22-29 can expect to be paid on average 3.6% less than women for full time work and 2.8% less for part time. men in part time work from the age of 30-39 can expect to be paid 6.6% less than women. there is also a generational question. from the age of 40 upwards the gap shifts in favour of men from 1.1% (30-39) in full time work to over 15% (and in part time work from the -6.6% noted above to  11.2 - these are trends set to reverse considering more recent developments in trends of gender employment. by 2020 it's predicted that women's general rates of pay will have overtaken men's in the UK - this despite the occupational factors, hours worked etc noted above (men still working longer hours and in more dangerous professions, with less family time).

i would also add that the gender pay gap is something i instinctively believed in several years ago, before i actually began to research the stats. 
Generally? Or within positions? And I don't see what makes census data bad. 
it's not that the census data is 'bad', it's just that the controls which should be used have not been. no studies i have yet come across have actually cross-analysed all the component features of this question which could give accurate data.

there is a definite problem with 'gendering' jobs (generally, jobs associated with women are lower paid and often menial such as cleaning, nursing, etc) but that is a broader sociological issue and not one simply relegated to the job market and employment.
There's really only one person you can poll about 'why' someone got a raise and that's the person that would have done it for bigoted reasons, so you aren't likely to get an honest answer from them. 

But general data is data - if generally women make 30 percent less in most jobs that is what we are living with and that isn't fair.
data is data is data... but analysing data in a way which suggests that women are being paid less on the basis of the same work and employment has specific policy implications, and locates the issue in the realm of employment law/custom. imo, the problem is a broader question of gender as a whole, and social labelling (not to mention social custom which specifically favours female dominated childcare). the policy conclusions you'd draw from the different perspectives are very different, so it's important to make the distinction
No, +Kate Childers you can't make a conclusion based on general data.  You can only make an observation.  Census data may indicate women are an average of 5inches shorter than men too.  You can't conclude that is from discrimination or poor eating habits or that they have parasites or that men are surreptitiously using growth hormone.  You need controls.  10 years ago every post-menopausal woman was supposed to receive hormone replacement.  Two years ago (after better controls and more data emerged) no women were supposed to be on hormone replacement.  Now, maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't.  The data can go either way depending on those controls and appropriate analysis.  It is not my personal opinion, but by way of example, it could turn out that after ascribing a monetary value for and controlling for maternity leave, sick days, family time and utilization of medical benefits, men actually are paid less in many positions.  But I think the larger question is that you are going to have a much harder time making your case, even if it's correct, by using soft observational data like this and the deniers are going to have lots of cover to continue their practice.
I agree, data only provides observations, not conclusions.  That doesn't mean it's not a reason to act.  

Because let's face it.  If bigotry isn't a reason for the difference in wages, then making that law simply won't change anything and there is no logical reason to keep it from being made unless you are trying to protect something.
There are several reasons: 1. Waste of time and resources 2. reverse discrimination 3. frivolous legal action 4. gender mistrust 5. unintended consequences.  You're better off starting from supportable conclusions before instituting misguided changes.  Making rules based on assumption will lead to blow-back and a failure to adopt.  Making rules based on very solid evidence is more easily instituted and accepted and then only the true bigots and sexists object, a much smaller population with more indefensible positions.  Better data also is more likely to lead to better rules.  For example, I could argue that I am currently being discriminated against.  In my medical group there is long paid maternity leave and inconsequential paid paternity leave.  Yet our salaries are based on a national average and metric, according to time in the position.  Many women have taken 3-5 months off in my group without any employment consequences, despite the fact that I have had children over the same time frame and continued to work.  I'm okay with it overall and think women with children and families should be supported.  But start making rules that negatively impact me even further on a misguided notion that I have it better and I am likely to not be very happy.  You don't want to alienate your sympathetic base for the sake of the actual sexists out there, who may not be affected by the rule anyway, depending on its implementation.
Um, taking 3-5 months off should not have employment consequences - what are you talking about?

And having many times over personally observed and experienced men automatically getting the promotion, good positions, opportunities and raises, when women are ignored, I'm having a hard time feeling sympathy for your fear of maybe experiencing it yourself.
I'm the choir, +Kate Childers
Take gender out of it for a minute, if we are truly going to try to be equal.  Let's compare a woman who has three kids on the job with another who has none.  You can wish there to be no consequences but there will be both direct and indirect nevertheless.  The one that works will be more up to date, have had time to develop better relationships, able to take advantage of more opportunities, need to spend less time catching up.  How fair is it to the childless one to not make any more money or get any compensatory benefits when she is working, while the other one sits home?
Also, I may ask my boss for 4 months off to work on my charity while still getting paid.  There is great social benefit/value to that but I'm likely to get laughed at.  So this is not just fear of losing something.  It is an opportunity I am denied.  I don't bemoan it now but a real analysis has to factor that in before claims of discrimination are to believed by a critical mass.
Maternity leave is probably a small factor in the scheme of things.  But it is complexity like this that must be addressed if social growth is going to occur evenhandedly.
Add a comment...