Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

My wife makes $0.26 less than me an hour doing the exact same job I do.

But then again, I have a lot of experience in the field, she has none, I have certifcations in electronics, she has none. So I'd say even with the pay difference between the two, her pay isn't decreased at all because she's a woman, its decreased slightly because she doesn't have the experience and background.

---

At 10/25/05 10:02 PM, DMXRoid wrote: So then NOW, the Feminist Majority, etc. are just Left-WIng women's propoganda machines as well, right?

I'm arguing your statement that there's NO sexism in the workplace. As I said before, it's plain naievete that you can possibly believe something like that and sexism HAS to be a contributing factor. If you can claim that all these other things are factors, I'm guessing that you can concede that some bosses are sexist.

They've had exactly equal time in and exactly equal experience before arriving at that company? How integral is your mother to making the office money, or for that matter, the position in general? You've met a rival of your mother in a non-work setting, and you're trying to judge how good he is at his job?

They were promoted to managerial positions around the same time, yes. It was because their bosses were both promoted. And my mom, being the manager, is very integral in making the office's money. You know, she manages the workers under her. And because of her managerial skill, she creates a greater amount of revenue consistently each year. Whenever she's audited, she gets impeccable reviews and her office is very efficient. He's not a rival. He's an example of the kind of attention a man may get over a woman in the workplace. And yes, I've met him. And I'm sure we all know that a man's general attitude to a person he thinks is beneath him isn't an indication of how he treats his employees.

Yes, it's preferential treatment, but you just can't conceive that it might be for ANY reason but gender, can you? Maybe they get along better because they both like water polo, or anything else. It's not sexism to prefer someone's company if they're male, it's just a preference. Maybe your teacher's wife is a real bitch, and her boss can't stand her. Who's to say? The point is, maybe sexism has nothing to do with it.

Being able to relate more to an employee because he's male IS sexism. It's a form of it anyway. It's not as blatant as the thought that women are inferior, but it is sexism when it affects a person's job. And saying that every single situation like this can be explained away like this is ludicrous. If you're going to refuse to say that there's some sexism in the workplace, I'm going to stop discussing this with you. It's not worth arguing this point to someone who sees two examples of possible sexism and still refuses to believe it exists.

Yes, it's comparing the same number of HOURS worked, but it's not making any distinction for the TYPE of work being done. Men tend to gravitate towards higher paying ROLES that pay well not because there's a man filling the position, but because there's an assload of responsibility that goes along with it. We can at least agree that there are lifestyle factors in a woman's work decisions, right? Well, which would you rather hire for your CEO: someone who's going to work 60-80 hours a week, busting their ass for the company, staying late, or someone who has family obligations that, rightfully, will trump those of the business every time?

Men also take a lot lower paying roles. You don't see as many women working the assembly line, construction, among other classic male blue-collar jobs. You do see women in those roles but you also see women in roles as CEOs and the like. Not to mention that there's a lot of women in other industries that cater more toward women getting paid more. Adult entertainment comes to mind. So, maybe we can agree that the study can be very valuable statistically because of the job distribution being the way it is.

Please, show me the study. Until that, still pwned.

I'll get that study for you soon enough. I just need to find it. It was in a book I read and I can't find it. But until then, I'll give you this. It's from the Journal of Labor Statistics in the University of Chicago Press. Unfortunately, the thing doesn't show any statistics because you need a subscription which costs so much a year. I'll give you this, though.

http://www.journals...i-bin/resolve?id=doi

:10.1086/377026&erFrom=4140145412121255747
Guest

---

I'm arguing your statement that there's NO sexism in the workplace. As I said before, it's plain naievete that you can possibly believe something like that and sexism HAS to be a contributing factor. If you can claim that all these other things are factors, I'm guessing that you can concede that some bosses are sexist.

I never said that there was no sexism in the workplace, I said that the idea of an income inequality between men and women was a myth, and that the .76/$1.00 number can't be attributed to sexism. There are probably indiviudal sexists in the work place. THere are probably individual racists too. I just don't see any evidence that it's an institutional factor.

They were promoted to managerial positions around the same time, yes. It was because their bosses were both promoted. And my mom, being the manager, is very integral in making the office's money. You know, she manages the workers under her. And because of her managerial skill, she creates a greater amount of revenue consistently each year. Whenever she's audited, she gets impeccable reviews and her office is very efficient. He's not a rival. He's an example of the kind of attention a man may get over a woman in the workplace. And yes, I've met him. And I'm sure we all know that a man's general attitude to a person he thinks is beneath him isn't an indication of how he treats his employees.

Right, so, what you're saying is, you really don't have any actual information about the circumstances of the man's employment, you just know that you don't like him. You gotta realize here, dude, I'm not putting your mom down. I'm putting you down for thinking that the only reason he's benefitting more than she is is because of sexism. Look, if he really was a shitty manager, and an asshole to everyone, he wouldn't last at the company long, because his work would show it. Unless you're trying to claim that any employer or executive thinks it's better to keep a woman in her place than it is to make a profit.

Being able to relate more to an employee because he's male IS sexism. It's a form of it anyway. It's not as blatant as the thought that women are inferior, but it is sexism when it affects a person's job.

First off, I disagree with your statement that relating better to someone because they're the same gender as you is definitionally sexist. That's absurd.

Secondly, you're proving my point. You can't think of ANY reason why the dude and his boss might get along well than because they're both male. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other, more plausible factors in their interaction than gender.

:And saying that every single situation like this can be explained away like this is ludicrous. If you're going to refuse to say that there's some sexism in the workplace, I'm going to stop discussing this with you. It's not worth arguing this point to someone who sees two examples of possible sexism and still refuses to believe it exists.

See, you see two examples of possible sexism, I see two examples of things that had nothing to do with sexism. It's that that I think that sexism doesn't, or can't exist, it's that I don't give the charge the benefit of the doubt. I think there's more likely a very good reason for any and all business decision than sexism, and you're acting like I'm trying to put women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

The problem here is, that between the two of us, you're actually the more sexist one. You're the one who's assuming that men have this overwhelming urge to hate women, and keep them down, and that they let this impact their work decisions, and that they intentionally disadvantage a woman when given an opportunity to, all because they're men. But at the same time, I'm POSITIIVE you have no problem with all-women businesses, or women's business loans, or any other policy, program, or institution that discriminates against men.

Men also take a lot lower paying roles. You don't see as many women working the assembly line, construction, among other classic male blue-collar jobs. You do see women in those roles but you also see women in roles as CEOs and the like. Not to mention that there's a lot of women in other industries that cater more toward women getting paid more. Adult entertainment comes to mind. So, maybe we can agree that the study can be very valuable statistically because of the job distribution being the way it is.

Why would I agree that a study that has no statistical worth has any value? A blanket comparison of median incomes is a 100% useless number, because it doesn't actually tell you anything. You don't know a thing about income distribution across industries, or job titles, or education, etc.. All you have is a meaningless number.

Women take their fair share of low paying jobs too. When was the last time you saw a male maid? Or elementary school teacher, for that matter? Blue collar assembly line jobs tend to pay pretty well (I'd argue more than they should), because of unionization among other things. Yes, there are significantly more manual laborers that are male, but women have near-monopolies on other low-paying jobs too.

---

At 10/26/05 03:00 AM, LordXanthus wrote: I would have to agree that women deserve fully equal rights. They deserve the same pay, as well as the same treatment altogether. I don't understand why society expects women to recieve special treatment. Some of our customs, such as those which say that a man can not hit a woman, and that men should pay for every thing in a relationship, and that a woman deserves to benefit from a divorce, are more sexist to women than they are to men. Our current system degrades women, by making them appear to be pathetic and weak, which they are certainly not. Women will never be percieved as being strong enough to run the world (which they are, mind you) until they are considered strong enough to pay for a meal, or to work for themselves, or to take a punch. Bear in mind, I do not support violence against anyone, but women are no less deserving of it than men.

It's not sexist, because most women support this stuff. If a man doesn't pay for his date and do extra stuff for her, she usually gets outraged. Same if you punch a women, or do any of that other shit mentioned here. Don't call something sexist, if the "offended sex" supports it. This is the talk of an extreme feminist.

---

At 10/26/05 08:17 PM, DMXRoid wrote: I never said that there was no sexism in the workplace, I said that the idea of an income inequality between men and women was a myth, and that the .76/$1.00 number can't be attributed to sexism. There are probably indiviudal sexists in the work place. THere are probably individual racists too. I just don't see any evidence that it's an institutional factor.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now. I misinterpreted what you said. I hope, though, that you'll agree that some women do get treated unfairly in their wages, therefore any problems with wages is

Right, so, what you're saying is, you really don't have any actual information about the circumstances of the man's employment, you just know that you don't like him. You gotta realize here, dude, I'm not putting your mom down. I'm putting you down for thinking that the only reason he's benefitting more than she is is because of sexism. Look, if he really was a shitty manager, and an asshole to everyone, he wouldn't last at the company long, because his work would show it. Unless you're trying to claim that any employer or executive thinks it's better to keep a woman in her place than it is to make a profit.

Right. My mom making more money for the company than the man is no indication of her deserving at LEAST an equal wage? C'mon.

First off, I disagree with your statement that relating better to someone because they're the same gender as you is definitionally sexist. That's absurd.

No. I never said that. But when it affects your decision in promotion, that's when it becomes a problem with sexism. He relates better with the other guy because he's a man, the woman doesn't feel left out because she can't help it, but when the man gets a promotion over the woman, when she's a better worker, that's sexism.

Secondly, you're proving my point. You can't think of ANY reason why the dude and his boss might get along well than because they're both male. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of other, more plausible factors in their interaction than gender.

I haven't proved your point. You misinterpreted what I said. I was conceding to you saying that the boss might enjoy playing sports with the man and the woman doesn't do that sort of thing. So... since they're both male, and have certain social interactions that is somewhat expected from members of the same sex, they feel a kinship. It's like giving a job to your brother or best friend when someone more qualified applied for the job. Same idea, there's just not a good word to describe that kind of prejudice.

See, you see two examples of possible sexism, I see two examples of things that had nothing to do with sexism. It's that that I think that sexism doesn't, or can't exist, it's that I don't give the charge the benefit of the doubt. I think there's more likely a very good reason for any and all business decision than sexism, and you're acting like I'm trying to put women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

No matter what, a superior worker is still human and still makes a number of decisions based on their own personal beliefs. There are very few that look at everything strictly from a business standpoint. That's the good few.

The problem here is, that between the two of us, you're actually the more sexist one. You're the one who's assuming that men have this overwhelming urge to hate women, and keep them down, and that they let this impact their work decisions, and that they intentionally disadvantage a woman when given an opportunity to, all because they're men. But at the same time, I'm POSITIIVE you have no problem with all-women businesses, or women's business loans, or any other policy, program, or institution that discriminates against men.

Did I ever claim that men hate women? Did I ever even allude to that? I'm basing my arguments on subconcious sexism that even women have. I'm just arguing the side of the woman in this case. It's also true that women can be sexist as well.

And what's hilarious is that you have no idea what I believe about all-women business, or, since we're on the subject of discrimination, any type of all-black programs that consciously discriminate against white people. The NAACP comes to mind.

Why would I agree that a study that has no statistical worth has any value? A blanket comparison of median incomes is a 100% useless number, because it doesn't actually tell you anything. You don't know a thing about income distribution across industries, or job titles, or education, etc.. All you have is a meaningless number.

When I have enough money to check out that article for real, I'll send it to you or something. I think that it's going to be pretty objective. I just have a feeling.

Women take their fair share of low paying jobs too. When was the last time you saw a male maid? Or elementary school teacher, for that matter? Blue collar assembly line jobs tend to pay pretty well (I'd argue more than they should), because of unionization among other things. Yes, there are significantly more manual laborers that are male, but women have near-monopolies on other low-paying jobs too.

When was the last time I've seen a maid period? I'm pretty sure that there are far more auto line workers than maids and school teachers. Four of mine were male, by the way. I'm trying to get across the point that jobs are spread pretty evenly.

---

I'm going to stop arguing with you now. I misinterpreted what you said. I hope, though, that you'll agree that some women do get treated unfairly in their wages, therefore any problems with wages is

I don't know how you meant to finish that sentence, so I'll just answer the first part. I would be willing to agree that the overwhelming minority, on the order of < .001%, of women, suffer ACTUAL sexism in the workplace.

Right. My mom making more money for the company than the man is no indication of her deserving at LEAST an equal wage? C'mon.

There are different metrics for measuring managers than there are salesmen. And, honestly, why didn't your mom negotiate a better contract?

No. I never said that. But when it affects your decision in promotion, that's when it becomes a problem with sexism. He relates better with the other guy because he's a man, the woman doesn't feel left out because she can't help it, but when the man gets a promotion over the woman, when she's a better worker, that's sexism.

But he _doesn't_ relate with the other guy better because he's a man, he relates to him better because they both like bowling, or miniature statues of angels, or both collect spoons, or are both Indians fans. Whatever. There are plenty of reasons unrelated to the dude's gender why they might get along better.

And what if she's just not a better worker? Are you her boss? Do you see her at work every day? No, of course you don't. Yet, you're OK with making assumptions about the decision process. Why is that?

I haven't proved your point. You misinterpreted what I said. I was conceding to you saying that the boss might enjoy playing sports with the man and the woman doesn't do that sort of thing. So... since they're both male, and have certain social interactions that is somewhat expected from members of the same sex, they feel a kinship.

I love how you say "No, that isn't what I said", and then you repeat yourself. My point is that the bond based on gender between any two individuals is going to be infiniately weaker than the bond based on any real factors. Your point is that gender is the overwhelming source of bond.

It's like giving a job to your brother or best friend when someone more qualified applied for the job. Same idea, there's just not a good word to describe that kind of prejudice.

The word you're looking for is "nepotism". "Nepotism".

No matter what, a superior worker is still human and still makes a number of decisions based on their own personal beliefs. There are very few that look at everything strictly from a business standpoint. That's the good few.

I would disagree with you, and I'd like to ask a question in return. Are you a part of the work force, full time, or are you in school full time? How old are you? I'm not trying to be a dick, but any amount of time working with the people who make the kind of decisions we're talking about have their jobs PRECISELY because they're looking at things from a business standpoint. If they didn't, someone else would have gotten their job, because there's always going to be someone above them checking their progress and value to the company. You actively look for someone who deals only with the business decisions, because that's the person that's going to give you the competetive edge you want.

When was the last time I've seen a maid period? I'm pretty sure that there are far more auto line workers than maids and school teachers. Four of mine were male, by the way. I'm trying to get across the point that jobs are spread pretty evenly.

I travel a lot, so I see them in hotels all the time. And there are a lot of school teachers. All of my elementary->middle school teachers were female, although most of my HS teachers were male, mostly because I went to an all-male high school.

---

Generally your pay is based on the following things.

- your hours
- your work ethic
- your total time spent working (usually in moths and years)
- your rank (or position in office or in the workplace)
- Relationship with boss *
- Whether or not you need full pay (if your in school or somone else has a job that your living with) **

I gave the last to a star(s) because those are the key things. My hunch is that if a womens knowledge-work ethic, and rank are equal to that of a man, the boss doesn't pay her full because she's married or related to somone who lives in the same house, pays the same bills, and works as well. That's... half sexist, it's just a matter of saving money, indirrectly assositated with her beind a woman (more so married)

But what are the odds that every women is a better worker and more experienced then a male (especially since these jobs have been open to women for only 15-30 years.

What i do like about women is they're less sex crazed, a very admiral trait if you watch as much oprah and dr. fill as i do.

---

Actually, from what I've heard, women and men's pay are virtually equal, after factoring in other factors (number of hours worked, type of jobs).

I don't have any trouble with chivalry or anything like that. That is personal. However, what does piss me off is that they would lower or eliminate the strength requirement to be a fireman, so more females can be one. When it comes to jobs such as being a fireman, we should care about ability, not about difficulty to get that job. Women will have a harder time developing those muscles, and the job would be harder to get for them. Well, that is unfortunate, but it is necessary.

This does not hold true for sports, however, since sports is based more on how well a person performs according to whatever group he/she resides in.

In divorce, gender should not be considered at all. Some might argue that females tend to be better parents and should receive custody. That could be true. However, the basis of a decision should not be based on generalizations, but on individual capabilities.

As for funding for boys and girls sports, funding should be based on how many individuals are participating in said program.

Why do people naturally assume sexism? If they suspect sexism, they should approach the boss and demand an explanation.

The bottom line is... people should be valued by their individual achievements, outside of what category he/she belongs. I'm probably bias here, since I'm an Asian male, so I'm getting the short end of the stick, here.

---

ok there might be a difference in the hourly pay of men and women, but what im sayin is bigger stuff. if women were so equal how come they need half our stuff?

---

At 10/26/05 09:10 PM, DMXRoid wrote: I don't know how you meant to finish that sentence, so I'll just answer the first part. I would be willing to agree that the overwhelming minority, on the order of < .001%, of women, suffer ACTUAL sexism in the workplace.

Yeah. I don't know why I didn't finish that sentence. And I can't remember what I was trying to say, so I'll just let it go. I'll say that there's a very small number of women being treated unfairly, but to say that it's a number that small may be a little rash. Less than ten percent would be a better judgment call there.

Right. My mom making more money for the company than the man is no indication of her deserving at LEAST an equal wage? C'mon.

There are different metrics for measuring managers than there are salesmen. And, honestly, why didn't your mom negotiate a better contract?

My mom doesn't find it worth possibly losing her job over, I guess. They had the same contract but apparently, the other guy is getting more raises than she is. He may have worked that into his contract, but I'm sure they would have offered the same to her if he was getting that kind of treatment.

But he _doesn't_ relate with the other guy better because he's a man, he relates to him better because they both like bowling, or miniature statues of angels, or both collect spoons, or are both Indians fans. Whatever. There are plenty of reasons unrelated to the dude's gender why they might get along better.

You're right, there are other possible reasons. But I'll bet you anything that there's a greater chance that it all stemmed from them being of the same sex. Everything grows from a simple similarity, and you can't tell me that you're not guilty of hanging out with your guy friends more than women, unless you're just awesome like that.

And what if she's just not a better worker? Are you her boss? Do you see her at work every day? No, of course you don't. Yet, you're OK with making assumptions about the decision process. Why is that?

I've asked all these questions of myself. I'm dealing in possibilities just as you are. Believe me, I'm being objective, but I'm just saying that these types of arguments can be made and they're perfectly valid. The statistical evidence is more powerful, but giving possible examples of such treatment is just icing on the cake. If only I could find that damn cake!

I love how you say "No, that isn't what I said", and then you repeat yourself. My point is that the bond based on gender between any two individuals is going to be infiniately weaker than the bond based on any real factors. Your point is that gender is the overwhelming source of bond.

The bond stemmed from a male-male relationship that is being built upon can be very strong. And, again, you're misinterpreting my point. I'm saying that the boss doesn't spend as much time because he doesn't have that rooting with her. And that rooting just happens to be gender to some people.

The word you're looking for is "nepotism". "Nepotism".

Thanks.

I would disagree with you, and I'd like to ask a question in return. Are you a part of the work force, full time, or are you in school full time? How old are you? I'm not trying to be a dick, but any amount of time working with the people who make the kind of decisions we're talking about have their jobs PRECISELY because they're looking at things from a business standpoint. If they didn't, someone else would have gotten their job, because there's always going to be someone above them checking their progress and value to the company. You actively look for someone who deals only with the business decisions, because that's the person that's going to give you the competetive edge you want.

I'm only giving one example of a huge corporation that isn't based in the US anyway. It's a german company. I'm not sure how differently they do things, but the books being checked pretty much has nothing to do with that sort of thing. The second company I'm talking about is a privately owned realtor firm. They work about thirty miles northwest of where I live and my teacher's wife quit working there and I forgot what she does now.

I travel a lot, so I see them in hotels all the time. And there are a lot of school teachers. All of my elementary->middle school teachers were female, although most of my HS teachers were male, mostly because I went to an all-male high school.

Now, see, I had plenty of male teachers throughout school. And I don't travel to hotels. We have relatives everywhere.