"Alsvid" wrote in message
om...
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

Tom,
The "76 cents earned by women for every dollar earned by a man" refrain is
meaningless without controlling for relative experience and education. That
statistic does nothing to refute the contention that women doing the same
work with the same level of experience/education are in fact paid the same.
Companies indeed used to have different wage scales for men and women.
Does that still exist? I haven't heard of any such cases.

Here are some more links:
http://economistress.rationalmind.ne...es/000139.html

http://www.iwf.org/pubs/exfemina/July2000d.shtml

How about the statistic that about 90% of workplace deaths are suffered by
men? Is that a cause for concern? If not, why not?

Bob

"Bob Musicant" wrote in message
v.net...
"Alsvid" wrote in message
om...
Bob Musicant wrote to John Macnab:
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

The "76 cents earned by women for every dollar earned by a man" refrain
is meaningless without controlling for relative experience and education.

Dear Mr. Musicant,

I concur that it should be essential to take into account such comparative
factors as education and work experience when attempting to make sense of
that cited statistic.

That statistic does nothing to refute the contention that women doing the
same work with the same level of experience/education are in fact paid the
same. Companies indeed used to have different wage scales for men and women.
Does that still exist? I haven't heard of any such cases.

You might have overlooked this possibility of institutional sex discrimination.

Could it be possible that every worker, both male and female, in a specific
occupation tends to be paid less because most workers in that occupation are
female and their male employers tend to place less value on "women's work"
(the "pink collar" jobs), whether done by men or women?

For a historical example, as I recall, when nearly all secretaries were men,
being a secretary was a relatively well-respected and well-paying occupation.
After women had become nearly all of the secretaries, that occupation became
relatively less respected and lower paying.

In my view, as long as men continue to hold nearly all of the power at the top
in the workplace, some discrimination against women probably will continue.

'Give a girl an education, and introduce her properly into the world, and
ten to one but she has the means of settling well, without farther expense
to anybody.'
--Jane Austen (Mansfield Park)

--Nick

On 07 Oct 2003 15:13:44 GMT, (Franky1998) wrote, in
part:

I hope that the women reading this can be objective in responding to my
question, and don't think that I am a male chauvinist or something similar. To
the opposite I am upset with that fact, so I am doing a researc on this.

It is believed that there is a difference in the brains of men and
women, so that while pictures and diagrams make it easier for boys to
learn math, girls follow the verbal explanations better. Since chess
is a game of spatial relationships, that would give men some
advantage.

Also, men often have more spare time to spend on hobbies, from model
railroading on up. They have more economic power, and women get stuck
with housework and child care.

Of course, some women have done well at chess, indicating social
barriers are a more important factor.

Also, not to be forgotten is that men need to be good at something -
whether it is their grades, their car, getting high scores at video
games, doing well on the football field, making music with their own
rock band - to impress girls. Girls impress boys by looking pretty. So
men will be driven to all sorts of competitive activities, which women
may well tend to see as silly.

There are so many factors that to isolate them, and determine their
relative weight, would be an impossible task.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

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

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


Tom,
The "76 cents earned by women for every dollar earned by a man" refrain is
meaningless without controlling for relative experience and education. That
statistic does nothing to refute the contention that women doing the same
work with the same level of experience/education are in fact paid the same.
Companies indeed used to have different wage scales for men and women.
Does that still exist? I haven't heard of any such cases.

Here are some more links:
http://economistress.rationalmind.ne...es/000139.html

http://www.iwf.org/pubs/exfemina/July2000d.shtml

How about the statistic that about 90% of workplace deaths are suffered by
men? Is that a cause for concern? If not, why not?

Bob


If it's true (and it seems plausible), then it is a cause for concern.
What reasonable person could disagree?

John

It turns out women outperform hugely at University, too.
I think it's only a matter of time before women take up chess more
widely and win in disgustingly large amounts.

http://education.independent.co.uk/n...p?story=455137



Tom