The New Gender Wage Gap - Against Men

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm assuming what you are referring to is the that more women than men tend to work in professional, white collar jobs in cities like New York

That in itself is evidence of anti-male bias, as colleges must be discriminating against men given that in the types of discipline most suited to high-earning professional careers, there are more female graduates than male.

Extreme left wingers and extreme feminists tend to only look at evidence that suits their pre-conceived notions, and filter out any evidence that doesn't.

That is the essence of bigotry.
 
financeguy said:
I'm assuming what you are referring to is the that more women than men tend to work in professional, white collar jobs in cities like New York

That in itself is evidence of anti-male bias, as colleges must be discriminating against men given that in the types of discipline most suited to high-earning professional careers, there are more female graduates than male.

Your leaps of logic are stunning.

There are far more female applicants to universities. Therefore, there are more admitted, more graduate and now you have a larger pool to apply to professional programs which are high earners (medicine, dentistry, law, MBA). My law school's admission rates are still 50/50 but I honestly suspect they are for some reason holding it artificially that way because certainly other law schools have a greater than 50% female population (some approaching 2/3).

If you want to look at this, maybe go see why it is that males make poorer applicants coming out of high school instead of calling it bigotry.

You really do seem to have some kind of hang-up about women in the workplace.
 
I love the notion that just because women are suddenly having the confidence to go out there and work, and demand the same pay and all that, that men suddenly start waving the emasculation and discrimination card around.

Until there are no men working, and all the good looking ones are walking around shirtless handing out chocolates and champange to their lady bosses, and all the not so good looking ones are locked up or chained to mega structures where their walking provides energy for the world, then stop sooking.

There is no evidence in discrimination. Femminism is not around so women can degrade men (though there ma be some women who like that) but its really there to let a lot of women know, that in a world of today, there are other routes to follow other them the homemaker or whore route.
the end.
 
martha said:
Nationally, women in their 20s made a median income of $25,467, compared with $28,523 for men.

In case you skipped this part because you didn't like it.

I think it's you that's selectively reading the article, as you forgot to read this bit:-

“Citified college-women are more likely to be nonmarried and childless, compared with their suburban sisters, so they can and do devote themselves to their careers,” said Andrew Hacker, a Queens College sociologist and the author of “Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Men and Women.”
 
anitram said:
If you want to look at this, maybe go see why it is that males make poorer applicants coming out of high school instead of calling it bigotry.

By all means let's have that debate!

In some European countries, 80% of incoming teaching personnel are female. Does that situation represent bias against men? Do you see anything wrong with it?

Or does it represent equality?
 
financeguy said:


I think it's you that's selectively reading the article, as you forgot to read this bit:-

“Citified college-women are more likely to be nonmarried and childless, compared with their suburban sisters, so they can and do devote themselves to their careers,” said Andrew Hacker, a Queens College sociologist and the author of “Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Men and Women.”

Because women with a husband find it much harder to get the same position, and equal pay, because then the danger of this woman becoming pregnant is much higher.

What's wrong with a person devoting her life to her career anyways? Is it mandatory to start a family?

In Germany, for example, women still just earn 60-80 per cent of what a man gets, and a few weeks ago a study of the European Union stated that if the wage increases developed as they have so far, it would take 187 years before wages/salaries are equal. Some countries are more developed in wage equality, others less.

The population of most countries in the world is that around 60 per cent are women, 40 per cent are men. Bias?

At least of Germany I know that more girls are graduating with an A-levels exam than men, hence more are starting university or polytechnics. Bias? More girls/women are deciding to study to become teachers than boys/men. Bias?

Are you asking for forcing more men to become teachers so that it is 50/50? Is that so important?

So should also more men become secretaries or cleaning staff to enhance gender equality? Or more women working as carpenters or construction worker to enhance gender equality?


Maybe some women are doing a better job than there male counterparts, hence getting a better pay. Maybe they are more committed because they want to, or they know that they have to be double as good as men to be respected.
And maybe they have a husband, or even children, and are the main bread-earner in the family.

Yes, these are the modern times, and we as men have to let this "golden age" go.

“New York is an achievement-based city, and achievement here is based on how well you use your brain, not what you do with your back,” said Mitchell L. Moss
 
Last edited:
That wage gap swings when they have to cut down the work load, we have the edge when it comes to career.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Finance Guy: One article decribing one age group of women in a few large American cities making more than men in a few selected jobs does not signal the downfall of your gender. I know you think it does. You can grasp at it, put lights on it, even take its picture on a pony. It still does not mean that your poor gender is experiencing discrimination. If you can muster up some more evidence that shows how those uppity women make more than men doing the same job, then go for it. Find it, post it, love it. You won't find it. You will find the opposite, even if you look on your special anti-woman sites.

Like it of not, your gender still has the edge all over the world.

:hug:
 
Finishing the second page of the article, that's quite interesting as well.

In New York, the pay gap between men and women varied by borough, profession, race and ethnicity, the analysis found.

This world is so complicated, let's make it: "Women earn more than men!"

Young men in the city still make more than young women in a number of jobs, including psychologist, registered nurse, high school teacher, bank teller and bartender. In high-paying Wall Street jobs, men heavily outnumber women [...] But in jobs that were once defined as male preserves — including police officer and private investigator — where gender barriers are crumbling, young men and women in New York had the same median wages [...] And women in their 20s now make more than men in a wide variety of other jobs: as doctors, personnel managers, architects, economists, lawyers, stock clerks, customer service representatives, editors and reporters.

And don't try to make the argument that the list for women's jobs os longer.

"It seems that women tend to take less time off between college and law school [...] But it probably has more to do with the unfortunate fact that women need to keep in mind biological time constraints and feel a great deal of pressure to build an entire career before refocusing on marriage and children.”

Yes, women have to face that, men not that much.
 
It's about time women are finally getting the pay they deserve. I don't think men are going to be oppressed anytime soon by women making more money in the workplace.

I will NEVER understand why women would get paid less than men in any job. If a woman is qualified and can complete the job proficiently, how in the world can she get less money than her male co-workers?

Women now have the choice of what career they want to take, whether it's raising a family or going into the corporate world, or both! It's fantastic.
 
Last edited:
I applaud financeguy finally joining the equality movement. I hope more men do. Women aren't asking for more pay, just equal pay for equal work. Now he has an understanding of what women go through - it's great. Brilliant, in fact. Now that men like him are being outearned, we might finally see some change by those who have the power to change it - the middleclass white man.

:bow:
 
financeguy said:


By all means let's have that debate!

In some European countries, 80% of incoming teaching personnel are female. Does that situation represent bias against men? Do you see anything wrong with it?

Or does it represent equality?

Or does it represent the fact that men don't want to be teachers??

In Canada we have affirmative action for men to get into teacher's college. When my brother applied, he checked off a "male" box and that sent him to the front of the line. His incoming scores could be significantly lower than that of competing females, precisely because there were so FEW male applicants. The few that existed were given better odds of getting in. What more do you propose be done? Should we force men into teaching against their will?
 
Damn. I was hoping finaceguy's title was indeed true. It would be about damned time. :grumpy:
 
OH NO.

Women are ... are ... WORKING! AND GETTING PAID DECENTLY TOO!

It's the Apocalypse, people.

Seriously, for fuck's sake. This article completely fails to show a bias against men. It's all in your mind, financeguy.
 
oh noes

More evidence that those broads are taking over! :sad: If we only knew how to stop them! :angry:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...5019055.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

According to preliminary figures, 87 women are entering a freshman class of 206 students in September. That 37% share is Caltech's highest since it began admitting undergraduate women in 1970,

Although Caltech insists that it did not lower its notoriously tough admission standards or practice affirmative action for women, the school said it more actively and shrewdly recruited women this year.

Clearly Caltech must be discriminating against men.











:|
 
the reason why women are beginning to outpace men both in terms of college applications, and then acceptance, as well as graduate school application, and then acceptance, is because they tend to have much, much higher GPAs.

so, if we can generally accept that tests like the SAT or the GRE or the LSAT are culturally biased against different socioeconomic groups, can we accept that the structure of high school, in particular, where one must sit still and pay attention and take detailed notes and master material and then spit it back out for a test, is culturally biased against men?

surely we're not going to say that women are simply smarter than men, are we? we'd never say that one group -- say, Southeast Asian Indians -- are smarter than another group -- say, Latino/as -- simply because they have much higher average SAT scores?

are men/boys disadvantaged by the very structure of the secondary education system itself?
 
Re: oh noes

martha said:
Clearly Caltech must be discriminating against men.


You think so?

It's an interesting point. It is well known that men tend to be better at science, so if the male proportion of a college's intake into science courses is rapidly decreasing it could well be that they are indeed discriminating against men.

An interesting point - thanks for raising it.


BTW, I love the typically PC title on this article:- "Caltech chemistry improves".

A decline in male enrolments is unambiguously a good thing, in the LA Times's view of the world.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: oh noes

financeguy said:
It's an interesting point. It is well known that men tend to be better at science, so if the male proportion of a college's intake into science courses is rapidly decreasing it could well be that they are indeed discriminating against men......

A decline in male enrolments is unambiguously a good thing, in the LA Times's view of the world.

You are pathetic in your paranoia. You read an article about how one fucking third of a freshman class is women, how this particular college only allowed women to be undergrads in 1970, and you conclude that the male population in thses colleges is "rapidly decreasing." :rolleyes:

You poor perscuted thing.



I cannot imagine the misfortune of your female coworkers.


Where's that ignore button? :hmm:
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:

are men/boys disadvantaged by the very structure of the secondary education system itself?

I think that is an interesting point. At the same time, a good question would be whether today's generation of boys is somehow different than the one even 20 years ago, when they were still dominating university admissions and professional programs. These are good sociological studies to pursue.

But pay equity is really a whole other beast and financeguy seems, frankly paranoid. He states men are "better" at science - is that actually true or has it just been male-dominated for centuries. With equity in admissions to things like engineering, will we see a reversal in this belief that men are somehow better in those disciplines? Time will tell.
 
Re: Re: Re: oh noes

martha said:


You are pathetic in your paranoia. You read an article about how one fucking third of a freshman class is women, how this particular college only allowed women to be undergrads in 1970, and you conclude that the male population in thses colleges is "rapidly decreasing." :rolleyes:

You poor perscuted thing.



I cannot imagine the misfortune of your female coworkers.


Where's that ignore button? :hmm:


You are a nasty bigot, a liar and a hypocrite.

You are not fit to be allowed near children, with your nasty bigotted attitudes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom