This is why affirmative should remain in tact

[7S]

All your arguments depend on stereotypical roles for working mothers. It doesn't matter if a women's career is delayed by childbearing. A women who works 2 years, takes 1 off for childbirth, then works 2 more years should equate to a man who has worked 4 years.

A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)

These constant sports analogies (Whites and the NBA) are not analogous. Football player salaries are also largely dependent on marketability. The sports public is not majorly interested in seeing women play football.

Also, "production labor" does take into account the so-called "pregnancy affect," as opposed to "reproduction labor," which is the number of childbearing years. Production labor is the contribution to paid labor as mentioned before.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

[Lindbergh]

All your arguments depend on stereotypical roles for working mothers. It doesn't matter if a women's career is delayed by childbearing. A women who works 2 years, takes 1 off for childbirth, then works 2 more years should equate to a man who has worked 4 years.


This competely ignores the reality of business.  You can't expect someone who takes time off to be in the same position at the end of 4 years of (disrupted) work, especially if they're devoting less time per week to the job (which is usually the case).

You can argue that traditional gender roles are "stereotypical", but they're still the reality, and they logically impact success outside the home.

A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)

Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure.

These constant sports analogies (Whites and the NBA) are not analogous. Football player salaries are also largely dependent on marketability. The sports public is not majorly interested in seeing women play football.

Because women can't really play football very well.  Just like women who are focused on the home can't devote as much time to their career, and usually end up being somewhat less successful as a result. 

Also, "production labor" does take into account the so-called "pregnancy affect," as opposed to "reproduction labor," which is the number of childbearing years. Production labor is the contribution to paid labor as mentioned before.

? 

What about the fact that women often focus on the home more even after they return to work?

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

See above.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

Again, women focus more on the home than men.  You can argue that this is wrong, or blame the husbands, but it doesn't change the reality.  And this is the primary reason women end up achieving less (on average) at work.  I imagine women who devote as much time to the office as men do achieve far more comparable results. 

[PNym]

Lindbergh already said much of what I wanted to say, so I'll address the points that you brought up which I don't think he adequately addressed.

A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)

I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.

[7S]

All your arguments depend on stereotypical roles for working mothers. It doesn't matter if a women's career is delayed by childbearing. A women who works 2 years, takes 1 off for childbirth, then works 2 more years should equate to a man who has worked 4 years.


This competely ignores the reality of business.  You can't expect someone who takes time off to be in the same position at the end of 4 years of (disrupted) work, especially if they're devoting less time per week to the job (which is usually the case).

You can argue that traditional gender roles are "stereotypical", but they're still the reality, and they logically impact success outside the home.

A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)

Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure.

These constant sports analogies (Whites and the NBA) are not analogous. Football player salaries are also largely dependent on marketability. The sports public is not majorly interested in seeing women play football.

Because women can't really play football very well.  Just like women who are focused on the home can't devote as much time to their career, and usually end up being somewhat less successful as a result. 

Also, "production labor" does take into account the so-called "pregnancy affect," as opposed to "reproduction labor," which is the number of childbearing years. Production labor is the contribution to paid labor as mentioned before.

? 

What about the fact that women often focus on the home more even after they return to work?

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

See above.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

Again, women focus more on the home than men.  You can argue that this is wrong, or blame the husbands, but it doesn't change the reality.  And this is the primary reason women end up achieving less (on average) at work.  I imagine women who devote as much time to the office as men do achieve far more comparable results. 

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

[7S]

I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

It might not make sense using quotas, but it makes perfect sense for AA.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.
[/quote]

You did say that in a prior statement: "...single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts."

[PNym]

I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

It might not make sense using quotas, but it makes perfect sense for AA.

If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.

You did say that in a prior statement: "...single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts."

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

[PNym]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

[7S]

If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

One my favorite misconceptions about Affirmative Action. You do have to have to be comptent to benefit from AA. Any other system is a quota.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

[Lindbergh]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, as noted, maybe we can agree that the role is "confining", but that it's also the reality. Which then leads to lower incomes.

And maybe the women in the study really do come across as argumentative.  You seem to be ignoring the possibility that men and women really are different, and are therefore inherently going to cause certain reactions when they act in certain ways.

[7S]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?