Bob Musicant wrote:
"John Macnab" wrote in message
news:9Q4ib.74522$6C4.27609@pd7tw1no...

Bob Musicant wrote:

"Alsvid" wrote in message
e.com...


Why are females paid less in work?


They aren't. Women are paid the same as men for doing the same job,
education and experience being equal. At least that is the case in the

U.S.

I'd love to see compelling evidence of this! Do you have a source?


I'm sure I could do a little hunting around and come up with a few. In the
meantime, I'm wondering if you believe that there are actually employers out
there who are paying less to women than to men doing the same job? I don't
think that even the most vocal women's rights groups are making that claim.

If you are talking about less pay for the total female workforce, sure,

but

then you have to take into account that more women than men opt for
part-time work, and that more women than men drop out of the workforce
temporarily or permanently in order to attend to children.

Your point about women doing better in school is well-taken, and only
underscores another myth, that being that "schools shortchange girls."



Oh my goodness. So the biological necessity of being the child-bearer
in a family is justifiable grounds for wage discrimination, is it?


John,

Discrimination is only wrong when similarly situated persons are treated
differently. That is the sort of discrimination against which civil rights
law, such as the 14th Amendment and the 1984 Civil Rights Act, protect
citizens. It follows that it is not wrong to treat differently situated
people differently. If it is standard practice for an employer to pay a
higher wage to people with more experience in a certain job, is the employer
committing a wrong for paying less to a woman who has less experience
because she has chosen to take time out of the job market to see to her
children? Should the reason that a person has less experience be of concern
to the employer?

Bob


1. Note that for many members of this group (including me) American law
is irrelevant.

2. There are cases where treating people differently based upon their
differences is defensible. What is contested is when these cases occur.
For example, not too long ago it was considered reasonable not to hire
young married women because they are likely to have children in the near
future. Almost everyone recognizes this as discrimination now. I am
suggesting (and this is by no means a "far-out" suggestion) that your
argument that time lost due to child-bearing is relevant grounds for
wage discrimination is highly self-serving. If men suddenly bore the
biological "burden" of giving birth we would have an amazingly abrupt
change in policy.

John