Although many agree that females still make less than men to this day, is it true? If so, is it because a majority of jobs males hold are more hierarchy-based high up or demanding? If unfair wages are so important, comparative to racial discrimination, then why is no one actually doing anything about it? Should the activity for change in unfair gender wages be a sign of its importance not only to the main workforce, but even to women?
In terms of class discussion, are men and women's bodies generally disposed to being more fit for certain types of work? We discussed men's general physical dominance in terms of muscle mass, but there have been arguments as well for many right-sided brain based jobs being higher paying. Is it necessarily male's faults for the continuation of unfair wages, or the fault of unmotivated females who still let themselves be paid less. What could be done in the near future to curb a problem that many only talk about changing, rather than actually doing something about?
7 comments:
This question seems to be taboo when it is actually presented in the workplace. It may be that exact reason that things havent changed. Most just want to avoid the question alltogether. I have, and currently am having experience with this at the moment. The company I work for is currently changing management and there are several good canidates of different genders.
Certainly there are jobs in the world that require physical mass to operate effectively in. In those cases it is hard for females to obtain- however do females really want those types of jobs? I would have to say most do not. In terms of seeing change in wages, and further segregation I think we are nearing a point to where you see some companies required to interview a female, and person of color. In these jobs that are "neutral" this sort of action is a step in the right direction.
I was actually a member of a women's studies class last semester, and throughout the class we discussed inequality in the workplace. Not only is it true that women make less than men in the workplace, but it also varies by race, where you work, and the state where you live. In fact, Nebraska has some of the lowest paid women in the United States as compared to men!
And keep in mind, that these comparisons are in relation to the white man's dollar: white women make 79% of the dollar that white men make, black women 69% of what white men make; however, younger women (16-24) make 94% of the white man's dollar, but this could be due to the fact that younger men and women are usually all starting in entry level jobs so they make closer to the same amount, or at least that's my take on the age difference.
I think that now, as financial necessity makes it so that both sexes must work to support their families that women will begin to be paid more. However, it's interesting that as more women move into predominantly male jobs, the prestige and pay both lessens. However it seems to not be the same for men who are interested in predominantly female jobs. Such as when men decide to become kindergraten teachers, they are often fast-tracked into become school administrators.
I think that as more men and women demand pay equality, things will change, but I don't believe that enough people in the work force today are aware of the pay differential and are not fighting hard enough to change it because they don't want to risk losing their jobs.
I know some specific examples where women were paid more than their male counterparts because corporations had to hire a woman or be in trouble with the law!
Is affirmative action working or just making it legal to reverse discriminate???
This subject for me is a conundrum because I personally am about to enter a predominately male work force. It's hard to say if I will be offered less than my male counter parts or not. I realize that I may have a better chance at a job because a company needs to hire a woman or a person of color but I don't know that I want that advantage. Of course I want a good job but what if they are only hiring me because I'm a female? That isn't a motivating factor for me as an employee.
Once when I was at a job fair I was treated unfairly not because I was a female but because (from what I assume) I was a thinner, cute female. I was told that I had to be a "tough cookie" to be successful at a certain job. Another female classmate was treated completely differently by the same person. Why is it that women who LOOK more feminine are treated differently than women who take on more male characteristics?? I think women who want to be successful can be but often it's at the cost of their own femininity. If they act or look like a man they will be treated like one and may get more opportunities. I don't think affirmative action should be done away with. It's not reverse discrimination because not everyone in the company has to be a female or a minority, only a certain percentage. This shouldn't make that big of a difference when you look at the overall demographics of the population...it's obviously not always a fair situation but no one said life was fair. And usually the minorities or women get the short end of that stick.
I have heard of similar situations that Bad_Apples pointed out. My Dad worked for the State of Nebraska for a number of years, and on more then one occasion when a position became available it went to people that had the most diversity. It had become a situation where the state was trying to alter a perception that they didn't employ enough female or racially diverse people. As my father was in management, he had to pass on potential candidates that were white men or women for less qualified men and women of other races. In fact, for quite sometime if you were a woman of non-Caucasian ethnicity and applied for a position at the state it was nearly considered a guarantee hire assuming you had the most basic of qualifications and/or were considered trainable.
On a totally different comparison, for years Runza restaurants used to try and keep the men employees in the kitchen areas and the women at the counter as it was believed sales were better when you had young (attractive) women taking food orders as opposed to guys. I still see this a lot, but I have also seen more guys working the registers lately.
It is true that men more often than not make more, or are paid more than women. I do not believe that this is due to the difference in body types, or for that matter intellect but in many instances it is a subversive type of discrimination that sometimes is very hard to detect. My mother, divorced since I was an infant has worked in several jobs that were male dominated fields. While the supposition was that everyone was paid "the same", in reality there are many ways in which this can be manipulated, while not breaking the law. For example; when she drove a route truck, certain routes had bigger stores and less "windshield" time, while other routes had lots of little stores and a lot of time driving from store to store. Which routes do you think that the few females that worked for this company were assigned. Yet the higher ups would certainly tell you that they paid their employees the same rate, it was a job that was paid by commission, so the bigger stores would be the most lucrative and take less work time. Another example was when she waited tables, in one of the nicest restaurants in Lincoln, there were mostly waiters, but also a few waitresses. Section assignments, days assigned to work and the tables that were seated in your section all can determine in many ways how much someone can make and these also can be manipulated by upper management.
I think that the excuse that some jobs are male dominated because women really don't want to work in "those kinds" of jobs are just that, excuses, a reason to try to keep women out of those jobs. There are just as many men who many not want to work in certain fields as there are women. But to pigeon-hole someone because of their gender is just wrong, yet it continues today. The "good ole boys" system is still alive today and that is what affirmative action is trying to fight, to bring a level playing field to the hiring for a specific job, what most men who object to this don't seem to understand is that they have benefitted from a from a affirmative action in the snese that they are usually hired easier because they are men and people usually hire those that look and resemble themselves first.
I agree with “blogger327” that people are not fighting hard enough to change the pay differential. However, can you blame them? The cost of living is skyrocketing these days. Many families are dependent on two incomes to get by. This means there is little room to debate pay differential in jobs because one may risk losing their own job. That puts the individual between a rock and a hard place. They may see how unfair it is that someone of the opposite sex is making more for doing the same work, so morally they should challenge it. However, if they challenge their boss they may risk losing their job and putting their families at risk. Less pay is still better than no pay; if you have family at home you really can’t do anything to risky and that sucks. But I think in time the differential will even itself out.
Post a Comment