4 ms·

We did it

31 points by bootload 17y ago

nostrademons 17y ago
"Motherhood, not sexism, is the issue: in America, childless women earn almost as much as men, but mothers earn significantly less." There's an easy (cough, cough) solution to that: figure out how to let men have babies. Heck, it could be Arnold Schwarzenegger's new initiative for California. He has prior experience with it, after all. ;-)
- restruct 17y ago
  Perhaps fatherhood, not motherhood, is the issue. Fathers need to be going on paternity leave at the same rates as mothers.
  - wensing 17y ago
    I heard (but can't verify) that fathers in Norway get a lengthy (many months to year?) paternity leave, as the powers that be realized that this time meant less juvenile delinquency ergo less monetary strain (and better national economy) in the long-run.
    - gcheong 17y ago
      Norway is 56 weeks at 80% salary or 46 weeks at %100 salary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
    - silentbicycle 17y ago
      While I don't know about Norway, nor the rationale, such paternity is an option in Sweden.
  - chancho 17y ago
    I don't know what the average parental leave duration is, but only 12 weeks are guaranteed and that is unpaid. Seems like kind of a short amount of time to make such a significant dent in your career earnings. How many promotions do you miss in 12 weeks? On the other hand, 9% of households are single-parent and 80% of those are headed by the mother. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent) That's 18+ years of hours lost to taking care of sick kids, ferrying them to/from school and activities, not being able to work late, etc. Seems more significant to me. ------- I don't know if you were actually referring to parental leave (i.e., paid time off) when you said "paternity leave" or if you were talking about a parent who actually quits his job for years at a time to raise children from birth until adolescence. This seems to be the most significant factor determining income disparity and even luxurious Scandinavian parental benefits don't completely neutralize the intense societal (and probably biological) factors that cause women to make this choice, as the article points out.
Locke1689 17y ago
This is one of the most confusing articles I've ever read. One of the first things that it points out is that in many ways women are not becoming equal in certain workplaces, theyre becoming significant majorities. It then proceeds to state certain deficencies and propose possible broad reaching social programs as reform. Wait-- go back. There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education than men? How does the author just skip over that? It seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na." I'm not saying there weren't good points brought up and maybe decent solutions but I felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there.
- SlyShy 17y ago
  >> There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education than men? That's simply a factual statement. You seem to think getting a college degree automatically makes someone hire-able. The problem is that for many women who have college degrees they still aren't as well off in the workplace as they could be. Also, engineering orientated degrees are more valuable, but these are exactly the degrees women are under-represented in.
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    I think that's off topic. Just as gender balance in higher education was a problem when it was 70/30 in men's favor, it will be just as much a problem if it is reversed.
- martincmartin 17y ago
  Ok, it's just after midnight, I've had a lot to drink, and http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ someone is wrong on the internet. in many ways women are not becoming equal in certain workplaces, theyre becoming significant majorities. Actually, the reason for the article, as stated in the first sentance, is that women will be 50% of the American workforce overall. No just certain workplaces, but over the entire workforce. That really is a moment to pause for reflection. It then proceeds to state certain deficencies Right. When the average of a bunch of things is 50%, then some of them are lower than 50% and some of them are higher. (Or they're all exactly 50%, but in super complex situations like human behavior that never actually happens.) Wait-- go back. There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education than men? How does the author just skip over that? The author doesn't. The author says that there will be more middle class women with jobs, but fewer poor women with jobs. He/she wants to help the poor ones. He/she also points out that, while they're in the work force, they make less money, and provides evidence that this is because they take time off to raise children. He/she thinks its a detriment to society overall when a woman, who is equally capable as a man, makes less money just because she has a gap in her resume. That's not inconsistent. It seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na." Restating your point with a visceral image doesn't make it any more true. I felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there. You mean because being "significant majorities" in "certain workplaces" is happening at the same time as "certain deficiencies"? As explained above, I don't see how that's a contradiction or requires congitive dissonace.
timr 17y ago
"If that means massive intervention, in the shape of affirmative-action programmes and across-the-board benefits for parents of all sorts, the answer is no. To begin with, promoting people on the basis of their sex is illiberal and unfair, and stigmatises its beneficiaries." I have news for the Economist: in the US, the "win" came from doing exactly what they think is illiberal and unfair. Nearly every major US company makes an explicit, systematic effort to increase female representation in the workplace. Is that "illiberal" and wrong? I don't know. I like having a balanced workplace, and I think that certain fields (hello, CS!) need more women. But when I look around and see men doing the vast majority of the blue-collar work (which is why they're being laid off in the "mancession"), while women make up an ever-increasing proportion of college graduates and the white-collar labor force, I have to wonder when we'll have to start giving men the affirmative action.
dotandimet 17y ago
OK! OK! Hold it! I just want to say something. You know, for every dollar a man makes a woman makes 63 cents. Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents. So, with that kind of luck, it'll be the year 3,888 before we make a buck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO3GLdtcmMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO3GLdtcmMw

31 points by bootload 17y ago

"Motherhood, not sexism, is the issue: in America, childless women earn almost as much as men, but mothers earn significantly less." There's an easy (cough, cough) solution to that: figure out how to let men have babies. Heck, it could be Arnold Schwarzenegger's new initiative for California. He has prior experience with it, after all. ;-)

restruct 17y ago
Perhaps fatherhood, not motherhood, is the issue. Fathers need to be going on paternity leave at the same rates as mothers.
- wensing 17y ago
  I heard (but can't verify) that fathers in Norway get a lengthy (many months to year?) paternity leave, as the powers that be realized that this time meant less juvenile delinquency ergo less monetary strain (and better national economy) in the long-run.
  - gcheong 17y ago
    Norway is 56 weeks at 80% salary or 46 weeks at %100 salary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - silentbicycle 17y ago
    While I don't know about Norway, nor the rationale, such paternity is an option in Sweden.
- chancho 17y ago
  I don't know what the average parental leave duration is, but only 12 weeks are guaranteed and that is unpaid. Seems like kind of a short amount of time to make such a significant dent in your career earnings. How many promotions do you miss in 12 weeks? On the other hand, 9% of households are single-parent and 80% of those are headed by the mother. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent) That's 18+ years of hours lost to taking care of sick kids, ferrying them to/from school and activities, not being able to work late, etc. Seems more significant to me. ------- I don't know if you were actually referring to parental leave (i.e., paid time off) when you said "paternity leave" or if you were talking about a parent who actually quits his job for years at a time to raise children from birth until adolescence. This seems to be the most significant factor determining income disparity and even luxurious Scandinavian parental benefits don't completely neutralize the intense societal (and probably biological) factors that cause women to make this choice, as the article points out.

Locke1689 17y ago

This is one of the most confusing articles I've ever read. One of the first things that it points out is that in many ways women are not becoming equal in certain workplaces, theyre becoming significant majorities. It then proceeds to state certain deficencies and propose possible broad reaching social programs as reform. Wait-- go back. There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education than men? How does the author just skip over that? It seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na." I'm not saying there weren't good points brought up and maybe decent solutions but I felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there.

SlyShy 17y ago
>> There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education than men? That's simply a factual statement. You seem to think getting a college degree automatically makes someone hire-able. The problem is that for many women who have college degrees they still aren't as well off in the workplace as they could be. Also, engineering orientated degrees are more valuable, but these are exactly the degrees women are under-represented in.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  I think that's off topic. Just as gender balance in higher education was a problem when it was 70/30 in men's favor, it will be just as much a problem if it is reversed.
martincmartin 17y ago
Ok, it's just after midnight, I've had a lot to drink, and http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ someone is wrong on the internet. in many ways women are not becoming equal in certain workplaces, theyre becoming significant majorities. Actually, the reason for the article, as stated in the first sentance, is that women will be 50% of the American workforce overall. No just certain workplaces, but over the entire workforce. That really is a moment to pause for reflection. It then proceeds to state certain deficencies Right. When the average of a bunch of things is 50%, then some of them are lower than 50% and some of them are higher. (Or they're all exactly 50%, but in super complex situations like human behavior that never actually happens.) Wait-- go back. There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education than men? How does the author just skip over that? The author doesn't. The author says that there will be more middle class women with jobs, but fewer poor women with jobs. He/she wants to help the poor ones. He/she also points out that, while they're in the work force, they make less money, and provides evidence that this is because they take time off to raise children. He/she thinks its a detriment to society overall when a woman, who is equally capable as a man, makes less money just because she has a gap in her resume. That's not inconsistent. It seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na." Restating your point with a visceral image doesn't make it any more true. I felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there. You mean because being "significant majorities" in "certain workplaces" is happening at the same time as "certain deficiencies"? As explained above, I don't see how that's a contradiction or requires congitive dissonace.

timr 17y ago

"If that means massive intervention, in the shape of affirmative-action programmes and across-the-board benefits for parents of all sorts, the answer is no. To begin with, promoting people on the basis of their sex is illiberal and unfair, and stigmatises its beneficiaries." I have news for the Economist: in the US, the "win" came from doing exactly what they think is illiberal and unfair. Nearly every major US company makes an explicit, systematic effort to increase female representation in the workplace. Is that "illiberal" and wrong? I don't know. I like having a balanced workplace, and I think that certain fields (hello, CS!) need more women. But when I look around and see men doing the vast majority of the blue-collar work (which is why they're being laid off in the "mancession"), while women make up an ever-increasing proportion of college graduates and the white-collar labor force, I have to wonder when we'll have to start giving men the affirmative action.

dotandimet 17y ago

OK! OK! Hold it! I just want to say something. You know, for every dollar a man makes a woman makes 63 cents. Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents. So, with that kind of luck, it'll be the year 3,888 before we make a buck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO3GLdtcmMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO3GLdtcmMw