i've always wondered: how has the case become that there are Foot-Locker stores, most-often divided in content with both men's and women's apparel, but then, or rather, now there are also Lady-Foot-Locker stores devoted solely to the feminine gender?
for the sake of my health i shall refrain from venturing/posturing an answer to this immaculate riddle.
Because unless you are a white heterosexual male, you have every right to be as racist and sexist as you want.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
That's it I'm convinced this country is going to hell in a hand basket because we have Lady Foot Lockers. This level of discrimination is unacceptable and the we all deserve to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
That's it I'm convinced this country is going to hell in a hand basket because we have Lady Foot Lockers. This level of discrimination is unacceptable and the we all deserve to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone.
What if it was "African-American Foot locker?" I guess that's Fubu...
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
What if it was "African-American Foot locker?" I guess that's Fubu...
I wouldn't care if it was African American Cross Dressing Midget Foot Locker. You can even open a Men are Douchbags Foot Locker and I still wouldn't give a shit. If I find the store's or company's policy to be discriminatory I simply don't give them my business. There are way to many important things to deal with in life in too short a time to worry about a store that only caters to certain portion of the population.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
That's it I'm convinced this country is going to hell in a hand basket because we have Lady Foot Lockers. This level of discrimination is unacceptable and the we all deserve to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone.
hail, hail!
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
If I'm consistantly paid less then a man next to me with the same experience I have, doing the same job I am, it is discrimination.
By default? I don't think so. I have women who work for me who do the same job as men and make less (and some who make more). On average, the two sexes do not make the same amount at my business. It has nothing to do with their sex and everything to do with their merits and their standards.
When I provide healthcare for my single employees, younger women can cost three times what a man does. Is it my right, in a desire for "equality", to only insure 1/3 of a woman employee?
Male employees, in my experience, ask for raises more often and more aggressively. If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?
Equal rights.
Pay isn't a "right". The opportunity for free exchange is. Simply looking at a disparity in male/female pay and screaming "EQUAL RIGHTS" is the height of foolishness -- it implies equal merit and equal circumstance. Furthermore, it implies that your mere existence grants you the right to a certain amount of money and, in turn, a de facto obligation for someone else to pay for that "right".
Certainly there is much sexism in this world, and I do not doubt that it is a factor in the pay disparity between the sexes. But it is not the sole factor, nor is it likely the major factor.
Male employees, in my experience, ask for raises more often and more aggressively. If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?
Yes.
If I man employee comes to you and asks for a raise and lists all the things that he's done to merit the raise, and you give it to him, I think it's your obligation to give a woman with the same qualities and qualifications the same raise. Obviously, by giving the man the raise you've established that a certain level of commitment, experience and performance should be compensated at a certain level. You are penalizing the woman simply for "not asking for it."
Now, in a related subject, I've read many articles and books on the difference between men and women in the workplace. The qualities that make a man a good leader - agressiveness, ambition, competiveness, assertiveness, confidence - are often rewarded. When a woman exhibits these qualities she is often labeled a cold, bitchy, overbearing. When asked what are the best qualities in a woman, things like loyalty, sincerity, friendliness come up.
Therefore, I propose that a woman that doesn't pursue a raise as aggressively as a man is either:
1. Behaving demurely as the way women are taught to behave from childhood (note: demure might not be the best adjective, but I couldn't think of a better one right away).
2. Trying not be perceived as a bitch (again, maybe not best adjective, but you get the point).
So, by not extending the raise that the male employee requested to your female employee you are in fact discriminating agains that female.
If I man employee comes to you and asks for a raise and lists all the things that he's done to merit the raise, and you give it to him, I think it's your obligation to give a woman with the same qualities and qualifications the same raise. Obviously, by giving the man the raise you've established that a certain level of commitment, experience and performance should be compensated at a certain level. You are penalizing the woman simply for "not asking for it."
Do you even work in a corporate enviornment?
You have to ask for a raise.....if the women doesnt ask but the man does than he deserves it. Thats the way it goes and vice versa.
You have to ask and show that you deserve it. There are no handouts.
You have to ask for a raise.....if the women doesnt ask but the man does than he deserves it. Thats the way it goes and vice versa.
You have to ask and show that you deserve it. There are no handouts.
I understand that "that's the way it works". That doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. It also doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for change.
I understand that "that's the way it works". That doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. It also doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for change.
"If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?"
If I man employee comes to you and asks for a raise and lists all the things that he's done to merit the raise, and you give it to him, I think it's your obligation to give a woman with the same qualities and qualifications the same raise.
No, it is not my obligation. Ethically, it is something I'd likely do, but I could certainly not do it and be comfortable with that choice in certain circumstances.
Obviously, by giving the man the raise you've established that a certain level of commitment, experience and performance should be compensated at a certain level. You are penalizing the woman simply for "not asking for it."
I'm not penalizing anyone. She's making exactly the same money she was making before -- was I penalizing her before her colleague asked for the raise????
Now, in a related subject, I've read many articles and books on the difference between men and women in the workplace. The qualities that make a man a good leader - agressiveness, ambition, competiveness, assertiveness, confidence - are often rewarded. When a woman exhibits these qualities she is often labeled a cold, bitchy, overbearing. When asked what are the best qualities in a woman, things like loyalty, sincerity, friendliness come up.
I value all of the qualities you mentioned, and would reward them regardless of someone's sex. Many women who work here are assertive and confident in particular. They are not treated as cold, bitchy or overbearing. Those qualities are why they were hired in the first place.
Therefore, I propose that a woman that doesn't pursue a raise as aggressively as a man is either:
1. Behaving demurely as the way women are taught to behave from childhood (note: demure might not be the best adjective, but I couldn't think of a better one right away).
2. Trying not be perceived as a bitch (again, maybe not best adjective, but you get the point).
Your proposal ignores the obvious solution here: ask for the same raise. In the equal qualification example you're detailing, it would be granted.
So, by not extending the raise that the male employee requested to your female employee you are in fact discriminating agains that female.
No, I'm not. If I randomly assigned raises only to men while ignoring women with equal qualifications, yes. Granting a raise to one person via a negotiation with that person is completely irrelvant to not granting a raise to someone else without that negotiation taking place.
"If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?".
I overlooked it the first time, and I was going to go back and edit, but I decided that when you read the rest of the post you would realize that I was referring only to the case when both the man and the woman were equally qualified.
No, it is not my obligation. Ethically, it is something I'd likely do, but I could certainly not do it and be comfortable with that choice in certain circumstances.
Funny that you do admit that ethically you would like to do it, but since no one is "making you do it" you don't have to. That's why sometimes legislation is required.
I'm not implying that this particular legislation would ever pass. I'm talking in the broader sense when you know that something is right, but you don't do it because you don't have to.
I'm not penalizing anyone. She's making exactly the same money she was making before -- was I penalizing her before her colleague asked for the raise????
Yes you are. What if she thinks she should ask for a raise every three years, where the male thinks he should ask for a raise every two years? Like I said, by giving the raise to the person (and let's say person this time) that asks for it for doing the same work that somebody else is doing, you are establishing that that work should be compensated at a certain level.
I value all of the qualities you mentioned, and would reward them regardless of someone's sex. Many women who work here are assertive and confident in particular. They are not treated as cold, bitchy or overbearing. Those qualities are why they were hired in the first place.
I commend you for that. I don't think that's the way it works in a lot of places.
Your proposal ignores the obvious solution here: ask for the same raise. In the equal qualification example you're detailing, it would be granted.
This assumes that the woman knows that her male coleague asked for one, but salary negotiations are confidential. Maybe the solution would be "full disclosure". But no one is ever going to do that.
I overlooked it the first time, and I was going to go back and edit, but I decided that when you read the rest of the post you would realize that I was referring only to the case when both the man and the woman were equally qualified.
Ok, cool.
Funny that you do admit that ethically you would like to do it, but since no one is "making you do it" you don't have to. That's why sometimes legislation is required.
Ethically, I believe that people of equal qualifications and qualities deserve the same pay in a corporate environment. However, such situations are incredibly rare. The problem with the legislative "solution", is that it will pretend that those situations are the norm. They are not.
The instant the government tells me that I have to pay men and women the exact same amount simply because they hold a similar job is the day I either fire all the men in this office or all the women.
I'm not implying that this particular legislation would ever pass. I'm talking in the broader sense when you know that something is right, but you don't do it because you don't have to.
It very well may pass. Many people believe in it.
I don't do it at times because sometimes it is not appropriate to do it, not because no one is pointing a gun at my head and forcing me to.
Yes you are. What if she thinks she should ask for a raise every three years, where the male thinks he should ask for a raise every two years?
What about it? She's free to ask for a raise whenever she'd like.
Like I said, by giving the raise to the person (and let's say person this time) that asks for it for doing the same work that somebody else is doing, you are establishing that that work should be compensated at a certain level.
First, they're not doing the same things here since one is asking for a raise. In order to get that raise, they'll have to justify it and negotiate for it.
Secondly, I'm not establishing that "work" should be compensated at a certain level. I don't cut paychecks to "work".
I'm establishing that an individual human being should be compensated at a certain level.
I commend you for that. I don't think that's the way it works in a lot of places.
Then those women should quit. Why, as a women, would you want to work in a place where your best qualities are labelled as "cold and bitchy", and your progress is stifled because of that? Will your laws change people's mindsets and idiocy? Will your law magically stop people from judging you?
This assumes that the woman knows that her male coleague asked for one, but salary negotiations are confidential.
No, it doesn't. As I said before, you as a man or woman have every right to ask for a raise at any time. If someone feels that they are not being paid a fair value for their work, they should ask for a raise. The fair vaule of your labor is determined between you and the person who pays you. What a third party is or is not being paid is irrelevant.
Maybe the solution would be "full disclosure".
Full disclosure? Are you suggesting that every employee in my business should be forced to wear a salary badge?
But no one is ever going to do that.
Nor should they. Determining whether or not your salary is public information in a corporate environment is based on your discretion and the discretion of those who pay that salary.
If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?"
I hear what you are saying farfromglorified. This stuff gets tricky. I think what happens is that people objectify such situations and make it about educational, professional qualities. When really, there are also issues about where the person is with interpersonal or plain old creative skills such as being willing to "make things happen" for themselves that can be shining very clearly beyond the surface criteria. I would definitely be biased towards someone who shows me they are able to create what they want to see, rather than expect it handed to them. Bigtime. And at the same time, there are some very frustrating social and work-related prejudices about women that mean women face the unique challenge of overcoming negative labels in order to acquire equal pay in what can seem to be an unfair market.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ethically, I believe that people of equal qualifications and qualities deserve the same pay in a corporate environment. However, such situations are incredibly rare. The problem with the legislative "solution", is that it will pretend that those situations are the norm. They are not.
The instant the government tells me that I have to pay men and women the exact same amount simply because they hold a similar job is the day I either fire all the men in this office or all the women.
It very well may pass. Many people believe in it.
I don't do it at times because sometimes it is not appropriate to do it, not because no one is pointing a gun at my head and forcing me to.
What about it? She's free to ask for a raise whenever she'd like.
First, they're not doing the same things here since one is asking for a raise. In order to get that raise, they'll have to justify it and negotiate for it.
Secondly, I'm not establishing that "work" should be compensated at a certain level. I don't cut paychecks to "work".
I'm establishing that an individual human being should be compensated at a certain level.
Then those women should quit. Why, as a women, would you want to work in a place where your best qualities are labelled as "cold and bitchy", and your progress is stifled because of that? Will your laws change people's mindsets and idiocy? Will your law magically stop people from judging you?
No, it doesn't. As I said before, you as a man or woman have every right to ask for a raise at any time. If someone feels that they are not being paid a fair value for their work, they should ask for a raise. The fair vaule of your labor is determined between you and the person who pays you. What a third party is or is not being paid is irrelevant.
Full disclosure? Are you suggesting that every employee in my business should be forced to wear a salary badge?
Nor should they. Determining whether or not your salary is public information in a corporate environment is based on your discretion and the discretion of those who pay that salary.
I think we can agree to disagree.
We're both speaking from completely different points of view. You are a man, and I'm a woman. You are a supervisor (I don't know what your real position is, but obviously you are in a position of power) and I'm an employee, not a manager. We see things differently and our realities are different.
It's easy for you to say that all a female employee has to do is ask for a raise and justify why she deserves it, and if she's right, you'll give it to her. I say that it's not that easy for many reasons I mentioned before.
I hear what you are saying farfromglorified. This stuff gets tricky. I think what happens is that people objectify such situations and make it about educational, professional qualities. When really, there are also issues about where the person is with interpersonal or plain old creative skills such as being willing to "make things happen" for themselves that can be shining very clearly beyond the surface criteria. I would definitely be biased towards someone who shows me they are able to create what they want to see, rather than expect it handed to them. Bigtime. And at the same time, there are some very frustrating social and work-related prejudices about women that mean women face the unique challenge of overcoming negative labels in order to acquire equal pay in what can seem to be an unfair market.
Certainly! I completely agree with all of this.
One important note about your last statement (bolded). This is both a negative and a positive for some women. Some of the women who work here have privately told me that they've come here from environments where they experienced a lot of bias that they felt was sex-driven. Interestingly, these women are among my best employees, and I think overcoming that bias is a big part of that. Those women rejected the illogical biases of others and sought out and helped create an environment relatively free of such bias, and are better people for it.
I've never understood the mindset of those who identify illogical or ridiculous bias in their workplaces, yet they pass up opportunities to find better environments and rather seek to enact legislation or rules that do nothing to eliminate the causes of that bias, just the effects. For example, my mother (a woman) was once sued by a female employee (a woman) for sex-descrimination after my mother fired her! Her demand? She wanted her job back. This made no sense to me. If her claim were true, why the fuck would you want to work for a sexist?????
We're both speaking from completely different points of view. You are a man, and I'm a woman. You are a supervisor (I don't know what your real position is, but obviously you are in a position of power) and I'm an employee, not a manager. We see things differently and our realities are different.
Ok. I have a lot of male and female employees who have received raises that will tell you differently, however. My interests and my employees' interests are very much aligned.
It's easy for you to say that all a female employee has to do is ask for a raise and justify why she deserves it, and if she's right, you'll give it to her.
If she's earned that raise, why wouldn't I give it to her? I've done it many times.
I say that it's not that easy for many reasons I mentioned before.
In some environments, I completely agree. Certainly many women are subject to biases that make it hard. And many men too, in different environments.
However, your law would affect me without any consideration to how I'm different. So, go ahead and pass your law -- I'll adjust. If there's no way around your law that forces me to pay the sexes equally, regardless of qualification, I guarantee you that one sex here will find its equality on the unemployment line.
It's easy for you to say that all a female employee has to do is ask for a raise and justify why she deserves it, and if she's right, you'll give it to her. I say that it's not that easy for many reasons I mentioned before.
as they've always been in the position of being white males..they haven't a clue and are soo easy to put others down. Its the whole republican "If you work hard you can do anything" and if you don't your just lazy" attitude. Just ignorance. I also have to question the ages of many that have posted on this thread...started reading from beginning and just couldn't believe the immaturity...oh well.
now, i know i'm entering a wide-world of pain here, but this is a very valid conversation, so so be it.
perhaps there should be a masculinism movement too, since having some type of official politik seems to be the only effective way of creating political-awareness[es] and social-change,....
i've always wondered: how has the case become that there are Foot-Locker stores, most-often divided in content with both men's and women's apparel, but then, or rather, now there are also Lady-Foot-Locker stores devoted solely to the feminine gender?
for the sake of my health i shall refrain from venturing/posturing an answer to this immaculate riddle.
and profits. Duh! Go take a business class or two when you get out of high or middle school.
Ok. I have a lot of male and female employees who have received raises that will tell you differently, however. My interests and my employees' interests are very much aligned.
However, your law would affect me without any consideration to how I'm different. So, go ahead and pass your law -- I'll adjust. If there's no way around your law that forces me to pay the sexes equally, regardless of qualification, I guarantee you that one sex here will find its equality on the unemployment line.
The mention of legislation was hypothetical. I don't think legislation is the answer, I think that awereness and a sincere push by all corporate America towards equality is the answer. And by equality I don't mean that every person should get paid the same. I mean equality of treatment and opportunity in all areas and all corporations, not just yours. If everything is as good in your company and with your employees as you claim it is, then it should be emulated. I think many other areas and many other companies are lagging behind.
Here is the reality:
1. Women still make, on average, 85 cents for every men's dollar.
2. Women comprise 50% of college populations, yet only 1-5% of companies have female CEOs.
3. Where I work, there ratio of men employees to female employes is about 1:1, yet only 10% of executive positions are held by women.
This is happening and it's important to understand why. Is it because women don't ask for promotions as often as men do? If yes, why aren't they?
How does having children affect that women's chances of getting a promotion, getting a raise? She will probably make less and advance slower than another female who doesn't have any children. Is this a problem?
Those are just some questions that need to be investigated and dealt with appropriately. The feminist movement addresses these issues. Basically, now that women are in the workforce to stay, how do we make it a leveled playing field?
Its the whole republican "If you work hard you can do anything" and if you don't your just lazy" attitude. Just ignorance. I also have to question the ages of many that have posted on this thread...
One important note about your last statement (bolded). This is both a negative and a positive for some women. Some of the women who work here have privately told me that they've come here from environments where they experienced a lot of bias that they felt was sex-driven. Interestingly, these women are among my best employees, and I think overcoming that bias is a big part of that. Those women rejected the illogical biases of others and sought out and helped create an environment relatively free of such bias, and are better people for it.
I've never understood the mindset of those who identify illogical or ridiculous bias in their workplaces, yet they pass up opportunities to find better environments and rather seek to enact legislation or rules that do nothing to eliminate the causes of that bias, just the effects. For example, my mother (a woman) was once sued by a female employee (a woman) for sex-descrimination after my mother fired her! Her demand? She wanted her job back. This made no sense to me. If her claim were true, why the fuck would you want to work for a sexist?????
You are a very unique person, in that you easily perceive life dynamics and operate WITH and around them quite effectively. It's my observation that many people do not. Most people, imo, see the general dynamics they've been taught, and focus on them, rather than understanding what underlies such dynamics. So rather than assess one's environment, endeavor to make productive changes and adjust accordingly some people will do what they've been taught, not realizing that what then limits them comes from within. I see this everywhere.
You need to keep walking those fine lines and informing us, 'cause frankly, I need to hear what you are offering about what you see that is NOT about sexism. People don't see that stuff in general so I for one welcome your reasoned, fair, informative approach. You need to offer up your side--no one else is.
If she's earned that raise, why wouldn't I give it to her? I've done it many times.
The fact is, you may or may not be sexist--and yet many people are. People try to undermine me due to their perception of me all the time. Now granted I see it happens to you, too--it's about life power abuses in general. I can definitely see the specifics when a man takes issue with my being out of "my place" when really I'm just being centered. It may be about sexism, and yet, really, it's still fundamentally power abuse, which is very generic, and which we all struggle with in our own ways. Ultimately, I'm guessing we're somewhat on the same page that, again, one must assess and adjust to their circumstances accordingly, thereby learning, growing and increasing one's personal empowerment rather than losing one's self in further unempowering action that may not be constructive. Ultimately, there are great variations in constructivity, and we choose what we want for ourselves whether it's self-sabotage and destruction, minor constructivity, or a full-blown pursuit of our vision.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here is the reality:
1. Women still make, on average, 85 cents for every men's dollar.
2. Women comprise 50% of college populations, yet only 1-5% of companies have female CEOs.
3. Where I work, there ratio of men employees to female employes is about 1:1, yet only 10% of executive positions are held by women.
i usually see a lower cents:dollar ratio, but the point i wanted to make is that the higher pay is for white women. boy does it get more depressing when you look at the figures for black and latina women. Here's this:
The wage gap is a statistical indicator often used as an index of the status of women's earnings relative to men's. It is also used to compare the earnings of other races and ethnicities to those of white males, a group generally not subject to race- or sex-based discrimination. The wage gap is expressed as a percentage (e.g., in 2004, women earned 77% as much as men) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men.
The Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who hold the same job and do the same work. At the time of the EPA's passage, women earned just 58 cents for every dollar earned by men. By 2004, that rate had only increased to 74 cents, an improvement of less than half a penny a year. Minority women fare the worst. African-American women earn just 68 cents to every dollar earned by white men, and for Hispanic women that figure drops to merely 57 cents per dollar.
The wage gap between women and men cuts across a wide spectrum of occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2004 female physicians and surgeons earned 52.2% of the median weekly wages of male physicians, and women in sales occupations earned just 62.1% of men's wages in equivalent positions.
If working women earned the same as men (those who work the same number of hours; have the same education, age, and union status; and live in the same region of the country), their annual family incomes would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half.
I said, it's easy for you to say that you'll give it if she asks, I'm saying that it's not that easy TO ask.
Of course it's not easy to ask. It's not easy for the man to ask either. Furthermore, it's not easy to pay the raise. What does "easy" have to do with any of it?
The only thing I'm hearing that's easy is to stick a gun in someone's face and demand money.
The mention of legislation was hypothetical. I don't think legislation is the answer, I think that awereness and a sincere push by all corporate America towards equality is the answer.
Me too. My only suggestion is to help push. If you're in a position of power, treat people fairly. If you're not, don't support those who don't by working for them.
And by equality I don't mean that every person should get paid the same. I mean equality of treatment and opportunity in all areas and all corporations, not just yours.
And that's cool, but I have no more right to tell someone else what to do than they have a right to tell me what to do. Am I supposed to hold a gun to someone's head and say "treat women fairly or I'll shoot??" That's not for me, sorry. I'd much rather just steal his best female employees and put him out of business.
If everything is as good in your company and with your employees as you claim it is, then it should be emulated. I think many other areas and many other companies are lagging behind.
Sure.
Here is the reality:
1. Women still make, on average, 85 cents for every men's dollar.
Ok.
2. Women comprise 50% of college populations, yet only 1-5% of companies have female CEOs.
Ok.
3. Where I work, there ratio of men employees to female employes is about 1:1, yet only 10% of executive positions are held by women.
Ok.
Now, can you show me the hard evidence that links these facts primarily to discrimination based on sex? EDIT: I'm not suggesting here that discrimination doesn't play a role. It certainly does. But the de facto response to these statistics seems to be "men are pigs". What gets lost here is that these statistics often don't change when women in power are evaluated. Furthermore, there are many other factors that you allude to below.
This is happening and it's important to understand why. Is it because women don't ask for promotions as often as men do?
In part, probably. Small part though.
If yes, why aren't they?
In my experience, women simply aren't aggressive about their pay. Be it in hiring them or in ongoing employment, women are far less likely to make demands about pay. That's just my experience, and there are also very notable exceptions. I can set my calendar by a female employee who comes to negotiate a raise with me every April. But for the most part, male employees seem to be much more demanding in that department.
How does having children affect that women's chances of getting a promotion, getting a raise?
Significantly. Women still tend to choose investments in children over their careers at various points in their lives. This carries a cost to them, as it should. The same goes for men (like my father) who made a similar investment by choosing family over work.
She will probably make less and advance slower than another female who doesn't have any children. Is this a problem?
Of course it's not a problem. The woman who chooses the career will have less children than the woman who chooses family? Is that a problem??? No. It's a choice, and like all choices, it has consequences. It's up to the chooser to decide whether or not those consequences are positive or negative.
Those are just some questions that need to be investigated and dealt with appropriately. The feminist movement addresses these issues. Basically, now that women are in the workforce to stay, how do we make it a leveled playing field?
You've already defined, with your questions, that it isn't a level playing field, nor can it be? Do you want to "level the playing field" for those who choose to get no education and therefore have few marketable skills? Do you want to "level the playing field" for those who are dead, since they're at a decided economic disadvantage those those who are living???
The "playing field" is life, not a job. Life is a series of choices and many of the ones you make will affect things like your marketability in the workplace. If you want a world wherein the mother who takes 10 years off to raise a child is treated the professional equivalent to the women who works 10 years without hanving a child, you haven't levelled anything. You've tilted the playing field to the mother's advantage by pretending that she has the same experience and skills of her counterpart.
No, I'm not. If I randomly assigned raises only to men while ignoring women with equal qualifications, yes. Granting a raise to one person via a negotiation with that person is completely irrelvant to not granting a raise to someone else without that negotiation taking place.
I think that is the most important point of your exchanges.
In the department that I manage, I have 4 full time employees and about 20 part time ones. Off hand I think I only have 3 white male employees, so the dymanic is a little different here.
Everyone started out at the same rate... some were promoted and all have been given raises based on their abilities, skills, etc... But a part of the process is attitude and personality. If employee A does their job just as good as employee B, but is quiet and doesn't express themselves as well, they might end up not getting as big of a raise as employee B, who is outgoing and may have even come out and asked for a raise.
It's part of the managing and motivation process... If employee B asks for and is given a bigger raise, they they know my standards will be a little higher, and I might push them more to "prove" they are worth it. To just give employee A the same raise just because the person next to them with the same work ability got one probably won't have the same effect as far as productivity.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
In my experience, women simply aren't aggressive about their pay. Be it in hiring them or in ongoing employment, women are far less likely to make demands about pay. That's just my experience, and there are also very notable exceptions. I can set my calendar by a female employee who comes to negotiate a raise with me every April. But for the most part, male employees seem to be much more demanding in that department.
.
this struck me as very true. my girlfriend has no intention of being an executive or making tons of money. at some point she wants to raise kids and let the man bring home the bacon. I think a much higher percentage of women feel the same way compared to men
You are a very unique person, in that you easily perceive life dynamics and operate WITH and around them quite effectively. It's my observation that many people do not. Most people, imo, see the general dynamics they've been taught, and focus on them, rather than understanding what underlies such dynamics. So rather than assess one's environment, endeavor to make productive changes and adjust accordingly some people will do what they've been taught, not realizing that what then limits them comes from within. I see this everywhere.
You need to keep walking those fine lines and informing us, 'cause frankly, I need to hear what you are offering about what you see that is NOT about sexism. People don't see that stuff in general so I for one welcome your reasoned, fair, informative approach. You need to offer up your side--no one else is.
Thanks. I'm here to speak my mind -- this is a good place to do so because of people like you.
The fact is, you may or may not be sexist--and yet many people are. People try to undermine me due to their perception of me all the time. Now granted I see it happens to you, too--it's about life power abuses in general. I can definitely see the specifics when a man takes issue with my being out of "my place" when really I'm just being centered. It may be about sexism, and yet, really, it's still fundamentally power abuse, which is very generic, and which we all struggle with in our own ways. Ultimately, I'm guessing we're somewhat on the same page that, again, one must assess and adjust to their circumstances accordingly, thereby learning, growing and increasing one's personal empowerment rather than losing one's self in further unempowering action that may not be constructive. Ultimately, there are great variations in constructivity, and we choose what we want for ourselves whether it's self-sabotage and destruction, minor constructivity, or a full-blown pursuit of our vision.
Completely agree. Not only am I not a sexist (at least on a relative scale), the laws that get proposed around this will treat me like I am. Ironically, the logical result of such legislation will likely force me to be sexist.
Comments
Because unless you are a white heterosexual male, you have every right to be as racist and sexist as you want.
-Enoch Powell
What if it was "African-American Foot locker?" I guess that's Fubu...
-Enoch Powell
I wouldn't care if it was African American Cross Dressing Midget Foot Locker. You can even open a Men are Douchbags Foot Locker and I still wouldn't give a shit. If I find the store's or company's policy to be discriminatory I simply don't give them my business. There are way to many important things to deal with in life in too short a time to worry about a store that only caters to certain portion of the population.
hail, hail!
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
By default? I don't think so. I have women who work for me who do the same job as men and make less (and some who make more). On average, the two sexes do not make the same amount at my business. It has nothing to do with their sex and everything to do with their merits and their standards.
When I provide healthcare for my single employees, younger women can cost three times what a man does. Is it my right, in a desire for "equality", to only insure 1/3 of a woman employee?
Male employees, in my experience, ask for raises more often and more aggressively. If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?
Pay isn't a "right". The opportunity for free exchange is. Simply looking at a disparity in male/female pay and screaming "EQUAL RIGHTS" is the height of foolishness -- it implies equal merit and equal circumstance. Furthermore, it implies that your mere existence grants you the right to a certain amount of money and, in turn, a de facto obligation for someone else to pay for that "right".
Certainly there is much sexism in this world, and I do not doubt that it is a factor in the pay disparity between the sexes. But it is not the sole factor, nor is it likely the major factor.
Yes.
If I man employee comes to you and asks for a raise and lists all the things that he's done to merit the raise, and you give it to him, I think it's your obligation to give a woman with the same qualities and qualifications the same raise. Obviously, by giving the man the raise you've established that a certain level of commitment, experience and performance should be compensated at a certain level. You are penalizing the woman simply for "not asking for it."
Now, in a related subject, I've read many articles and books on the difference between men and women in the workplace. The qualities that make a man a good leader - agressiveness, ambition, competiveness, assertiveness, confidence - are often rewarded. When a woman exhibits these qualities she is often labeled a cold, bitchy, overbearing. When asked what are the best qualities in a woman, things like loyalty, sincerity, friendliness come up.
Therefore, I propose that a woman that doesn't pursue a raise as aggressively as a man is either:
1. Behaving demurely as the way women are taught to behave from childhood (note: demure might not be the best adjective, but I couldn't think of a better one right away).
2. Trying not be perceived as a bitch (again, maybe not best adjective, but you get the point).
So, by not extending the raise that the male employee requested to your female employee you are in fact discriminating agains that female.
Do you even work in a corporate enviornment?
You have to ask for a raise.....if the women doesnt ask but the man does than he deserves it. Thats the way it goes and vice versa.
You have to ask and show that you deserve it. There are no handouts.
I understand that "that's the way it works". That doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. It also doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for change.
Its fine the way it is
OMG, really? Did you understand my question:
"If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?"
No, it is not my obligation. Ethically, it is something I'd likely do, but I could certainly not do it and be comfortable with that choice in certain circumstances.
I'm not penalizing anyone. She's making exactly the same money she was making before -- was I penalizing her before her colleague asked for the raise????
I value all of the qualities you mentioned, and would reward them regardless of someone's sex. Many women who work here are assertive and confident in particular. They are not treated as cold, bitchy or overbearing. Those qualities are why they were hired in the first place.
Your proposal ignores the obvious solution here: ask for the same raise. In the equal qualification example you're detailing, it would be granted.
No, I'm not. If I randomly assigned raises only to men while ignoring women with equal qualifications, yes. Granting a raise to one person via a negotiation with that person is completely irrelvant to not granting a raise to someone else without that negotiation taking place.
I overlooked it the first time, and I was going to go back and edit, but I decided that when you read the rest of the post you would realize that I was referring only to the case when both the man and the woman were equally qualified.
Funny that you do admit that ethically you would like to do it, but since no one is "making you do it" you don't have to. That's why sometimes legislation is required.
I'm not implying that this particular legislation would ever pass. I'm talking in the broader sense when you know that something is right, but you don't do it because you don't have to.
Yes you are. What if she thinks she should ask for a raise every three years, where the male thinks he should ask for a raise every two years? Like I said, by giving the raise to the person (and let's say person this time) that asks for it for doing the same work that somebody else is doing, you are establishing that that work should be compensated at a certain level.
I commend you for that. I don't think that's the way it works in a lot of places.
This assumes that the woman knows that her male coleague asked for one, but salary negotiations are confidential. Maybe the solution would be "full disclosure". But no one is ever going to do that.
Ok, cool.
Ethically, I believe that people of equal qualifications and qualities deserve the same pay in a corporate environment. However, such situations are incredibly rare. The problem with the legislative "solution", is that it will pretend that those situations are the norm. They are not.
The instant the government tells me that I have to pay men and women the exact same amount simply because they hold a similar job is the day I either fire all the men in this office or all the women.
It very well may pass. Many people believe in it.
I don't do it at times because sometimes it is not appropriate to do it, not because no one is pointing a gun at my head and forcing me to.
What about it? She's free to ask for a raise whenever she'd like.
First, they're not doing the same things here since one is asking for a raise. In order to get that raise, they'll have to justify it and negotiate for it.
Secondly, I'm not establishing that "work" should be compensated at a certain level. I don't cut paychecks to "work".
I'm establishing that an individual human being should be compensated at a certain level.
Then those women should quit. Why, as a women, would you want to work in a place where your best qualities are labelled as "cold and bitchy", and your progress is stifled because of that? Will your laws change people's mindsets and idiocy? Will your law magically stop people from judging you?
No, it doesn't. As I said before, you as a man or woman have every right to ask for a raise at any time. If someone feels that they are not being paid a fair value for their work, they should ask for a raise. The fair vaule of your labor is determined between you and the person who pays you. What a third party is or is not being paid is irrelevant.
Full disclosure? Are you suggesting that every employee in my business should be forced to wear a salary badge?
Nor should they. Determining whether or not your salary is public information in a corporate environment is based on your discretion and the discretion of those who pay that salary.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We're both speaking from completely different points of view. You are a man, and I'm a woman. You are a supervisor (I don't know what your real position is, but obviously you are in a position of power) and I'm an employee, not a manager. We see things differently and our realities are different.
It's easy for you to say that all a female employee has to do is ask for a raise and justify why she deserves it, and if she's right, you'll give it to her. I say that it's not that easy for many reasons I mentioned before.
Certainly! I completely agree with all of this.
One important note about your last statement (bolded). This is both a negative and a positive for some women. Some of the women who work here have privately told me that they've come here from environments where they experienced a lot of bias that they felt was sex-driven. Interestingly, these women are among my best employees, and I think overcoming that bias is a big part of that. Those women rejected the illogical biases of others and sought out and helped create an environment relatively free of such bias, and are better people for it.
I've never understood the mindset of those who identify illogical or ridiculous bias in their workplaces, yet they pass up opportunities to find better environments and rather seek to enact legislation or rules that do nothing to eliminate the causes of that bias, just the effects. For example, my mother (a woman) was once sued by a female employee (a woman) for sex-descrimination after my mother fired her! Her demand? She wanted her job back. This made no sense to me. If her claim were true, why the fuck would you want to work for a sexist?????
Ok. I have a lot of male and female employees who have received raises that will tell you differently, however. My interests and my employees' interests are very much aligned.
If she's earned that raise, why wouldn't I give it to her? I've done it many times.
In some environments, I completely agree. Certainly many women are subject to biases that make it hard. And many men too, in different environments.
However, your law would affect me without any consideration to how I'm different. So, go ahead and pass your law -- I'll adjust. If there's no way around your law that forces me to pay the sexes equally, regardless of qualification, I guarantee you that one sex here will find its equality on the unemployment line.
as they've always been in the position of being white males..they haven't a clue and are soo easy to put others down. Its the whole republican "If you work hard you can do anything" and if you don't your just lazy" attitude. Just ignorance. I also have to question the ages of many that have posted on this thread...started reading from beginning and just couldn't believe the immaturity...oh well.
and profits. Duh! Go take a business class or two when you get out of high or middle school.
Here is the reality:
1. Women still make, on average, 85 cents for every men's dollar.
2. Women comprise 50% of college populations, yet only 1-5% of companies have female CEOs.
3. Where I work, there ratio of men employees to female employes is about 1:1, yet only 10% of executive positions are held by women.
This is happening and it's important to understand why. Is it because women don't ask for promotions as often as men do? If yes, why aren't they?
How does having children affect that women's chances of getting a promotion, getting a raise? She will probably make less and advance slower than another female who doesn't have any children. Is this a problem?
Those are just some questions that need to be investigated and dealt with appropriately. The feminist movement addresses these issues. Basically, now that women are in the workforce to stay, how do we make it a leveled playing field?
then....
then...
Well done.
You need to keep walking those fine lines and informing us, 'cause frankly, I need to hear what you are offering about what you see that is NOT about sexism. People don't see that stuff in general so I for one welcome your reasoned, fair, informative approach. You need to offer up your side--no one else is.
The fact is, you may or may not be sexist--and yet many people are. People try to undermine me due to their perception of me all the time. Now granted I see it happens to you, too--it's about life power abuses in general. I can definitely see the specifics when a man takes issue with my being out of "my place" when really I'm just being centered. It may be about sexism, and yet, really, it's still fundamentally power abuse, which is very generic, and which we all struggle with in our own ways. Ultimately, I'm guessing we're somewhat on the same page that, again, one must assess and adjust to their circumstances accordingly, thereby learning, growing and increasing one's personal empowerment rather than losing one's self in further unempowering action that may not be constructive. Ultimately, there are great variations in constructivity, and we choose what we want for ourselves whether it's self-sabotage and destruction, minor constructivity, or a full-blown pursuit of our vision.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
how the fuck is this a republican thing? how is it wrong? wait, who is ignorant?
i usually see a lower cents:dollar ratio, but the point i wanted to make is that the higher pay is for white women. boy does it get more depressing when you look at the figures for black and latina women. Here's this:
The wage gap is a statistical indicator often used as an index of the status of women's earnings relative to men's. It is also used to compare the earnings of other races and ethnicities to those of white males, a group generally not subject to race- or sex-based discrimination. The wage gap is expressed as a percentage (e.g., in 2004, women earned 77% as much as men) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men.
The Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who hold the same job and do the same work. At the time of the EPA's passage, women earned just 58 cents for every dollar earned by men. By 2004, that rate had only increased to 74 cents, an improvement of less than half a penny a year. Minority women fare the worst. African-American women earn just 68 cents to every dollar earned by white men, and for Hispanic women that figure drops to merely 57 cents per dollar.
The wage gap between women and men cuts across a wide spectrum of occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2004 female physicians and surgeons earned 52.2% of the median weekly wages of male physicians, and women in sales occupations earned just 62.1% of men's wages in equivalent positions.
If working women earned the same as men (those who work the same number of hours; have the same education, age, and union status; and live in the same region of the country), their annual family incomes would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html
cross the river to the eastside
Of course it's not easy to ask. It's not easy for the man to ask either. Furthermore, it's not easy to pay the raise. What does "easy" have to do with any of it?
The only thing I'm hearing that's easy is to stick a gun in someone's face and demand money.
Me too. My only suggestion is to help push. If you're in a position of power, treat people fairly. If you're not, don't support those who don't by working for them.
And that's cool, but I have no more right to tell someone else what to do than they have a right to tell me what to do. Am I supposed to hold a gun to someone's head and say "treat women fairly or I'll shoot??" That's not for me, sorry. I'd much rather just steal his best female employees and put him out of business.
Sure.
Ok.
Ok.
Ok.
Now, can you show me the hard evidence that links these facts primarily to discrimination based on sex? EDIT: I'm not suggesting here that discrimination doesn't play a role. It certainly does. But the de facto response to these statistics seems to be "men are pigs". What gets lost here is that these statistics often don't change when women in power are evaluated. Furthermore, there are many other factors that you allude to below.
In part, probably. Small part though.
In my experience, women simply aren't aggressive about their pay. Be it in hiring them or in ongoing employment, women are far less likely to make demands about pay. That's just my experience, and there are also very notable exceptions. I can set my calendar by a female employee who comes to negotiate a raise with me every April. But for the most part, male employees seem to be much more demanding in that department.
Significantly. Women still tend to choose investments in children over their careers at various points in their lives. This carries a cost to them, as it should. The same goes for men (like my father) who made a similar investment by choosing family over work.
Of course it's not a problem. The woman who chooses the career will have less children than the woman who chooses family? Is that a problem??? No. It's a choice, and like all choices, it has consequences. It's up to the chooser to decide whether or not those consequences are positive or negative.
You've already defined, with your questions, that it isn't a level playing field, nor can it be? Do you want to "level the playing field" for those who choose to get no education and therefore have few marketable skills? Do you want to "level the playing field" for those who are dead, since they're at a decided economic disadvantage those those who are living???
The "playing field" is life, not a job. Life is a series of choices and many of the ones you make will affect things like your marketability in the workplace. If you want a world wherein the mother who takes 10 years off to raise a child is treated the professional equivalent to the women who works 10 years without hanving a child, you haven't levelled anything. You've tilted the playing field to the mother's advantage by pretending that she has the same experience and skills of her counterpart.
I think that is the most important point of your exchanges.
In the department that I manage, I have 4 full time employees and about 20 part time ones. Off hand I think I only have 3 white male employees, so the dymanic is a little different here.
Everyone started out at the same rate... some were promoted and all have been given raises based on their abilities, skills, etc... But a part of the process is attitude and personality. If employee A does their job just as good as employee B, but is quiet and doesn't express themselves as well, they might end up not getting as big of a raise as employee B, who is outgoing and may have even come out and asked for a raise.
It's part of the managing and motivation process... If employee B asks for and is given a bigger raise, they they know my standards will be a little higher, and I might push them more to "prove" they are worth it. To just give employee A the same raise just because the person next to them with the same work ability got one probably won't have the same effect as far as productivity.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
this struck me as very true. my girlfriend has no intention of being an executive or making tons of money. at some point she wants to raise kids and let the man bring home the bacon. I think a much higher percentage of women feel the same way compared to men
Thanks. I'm here to speak my mind -- this is a good place to do so because of people like you.
Completely agree. Not only am I not a sexist (at least on a relative scale), the laws that get proposed around this will treat me like I am. Ironically, the logical result of such legislation will likely force me to be sexist.