You will find that the psychological and neurological sciences often
attempt to find causual answers *and will hold up shaky evidence as
the truth when it supports causual theories* over normative ones.
Why are females paid less in work? It is proven that, at school,
they out-perform males in tests. Yet their superiority here does not
cross over into being valued and paid equally at work.

It is because of the way society still operates along gender lines.
One does not need to pretend we understand the brain.

The same may well be true of chess. We could be eager to point to
an apparent male deficiency at abstract mind games as caused by a
difference in brain structure, if only to wildly scramble back
legitimacy for our long-held assumption that they were naturally
inferior.
Get more women in chess and, hey, maybe they'll kick our asses, just
like they're doing in schools.


Tom

"Alsvid" wrote in message
om...
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.
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."

women do better in school than men do because most of their teachers are
women. and these women practice favoritism and have equally stupid
prejudices about boys comparable to male chess players who have never had
their ass kicked by a WGM.
"Bob Musicant" wrote in message
. net...

"Alsvid" wrote in message
om...
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.
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."

Bob Musicant wrote:
"John Macnab" wrote in message
news:rhChb.62429$pl3.1269@pd7tw3no...

Bob Musicant wrote:

"Doug Wedel" wrote in message
...


"David Ames"

Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players;
consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men
chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have
asked.

Ah, but look at bridge. There may very well be *more* women bridge

players


than men bridge players, yet there are very very few women among the

world

class bridge players. Wonder why.



I already explained. Different brain structure/function.



With all due respect, this hardly seems defensible at this level of
abstraction. We have a social phenomenon: men dominate chess at all
levels. We have a plausible scientific claim: men's and women's brains
are "structured" differently (although I'm not quite sure what this
means). You now have a reasonable hypothesis, that's all.

FWIW, I'm verys skeptical that there is a simple (single-factor)
explanation here, any more than there could be a simple explanation for
the observation that about half of the world champions had Jewish
ancestry. Or that only one has had Spanish for a first language, etc.

John


John,

The principle of parsimony, aka Occam's razor, suggests that in the case of
male superiority at chess, we not go hunting for alternative explanations
when an already adequate one exists, that being men's better natural ability
at spatial visualization. This is a thoroughly documented phenomenon,
research on which goes back many years. Are there contributions from other
sources? Most likely, but take away the difference that I am referring to
and the remaining difference is in all likelihood trivial, at least in
comparison with the primary source of the difference.

I don't know the explanation for the Jewish dominance in chess, or for the
dearth of Spanish-speaking champions.

Bob



Surely you recognize that I am not doubting the principle of parsimony;
I am suggesting that "superior spatial visualization" as it has been
defined by experimenters is likely NOT an adequate explanation. Do
these studies manage to control for culture, language and education? Of
course, given the sparseness of the explanation given here, I admit that
I could be wrong...

This thread reminds me of the fruitless links between race and
intelligence, or links between race and athletic ability arguments that
crop up with depressing regularity.

John

Bob Musicant wrote:
"Alsvid" wrote in message
om...

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?

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

marc margolies wrote:
women do better in school than men do because most of their teachers are
women. and these women practice favoritism and have equally stupid
prejudices about boys comparable to male chess players who have never had
their ass kicked by a WGM.

And your evidence is?

John

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

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

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

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.



http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wom...+less+than+men

Just a quick google for 'women earn less than men', sans quotemarks.



Tom

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.



http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wom...+less+than+men

Just a quick google for 'women earn less than men', sans quotemarks.



Tom