This is why affirmative should remain in tact

[7S]

http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=513563

gotta love cronyism

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html

Though not a solution, affirmative action offers the only current practical remedy for race, sexual preference and gender based discrimination. I am not condemning this decision I am simply saying the same opportunities should be forwarded to people who face abnormal amouts of barriers and hurdles in comparison to typical WASPs

It's funny that you call out WASPs on this issue.  A demographic breakdown will reveal that the most over-represented group at top law schools (and at Ivy League schools in general) is jewish people.

They have been a repressed minority, and have overcome it.  Just like the Asians, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc.
The American dreamed must be earned, not handed out.   

That doesn't explain gender discrimination and why women on average are paid 70% of what men are paid. Also, none of the groups ever experienced slavery or segregation. We're only 43 years out of legalized segregation and that's if you don't count transition and subsequent court challenges.

[PNym]

http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=513563

gotta love cronyism

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html

Though not a solution, affirmative action offers the only current practical remedy for race, sexual preference and gender based discrimination. I am not condemning this decision I am simply saying the same opportunities should be forwarded to people who face abnormal amouts of barriers and hurdles in comparison to typical WASPs

It's funny that you call out WASPs on this issue.  A demographic breakdown will reveal that the most over-represented group at top law schools (and at Ivy League schools in general) is jewish people.

They have been a repressed minority, and have overcome it.  Just like the Asians, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc.
The American dreamed must be earned, not handed out.   

That doesn't explain gender discrimination and why women on average are paid 70% of what men are paid. Also, none of the groups ever experienced slavery or segregation. We're only 43 years out of legalized segregation and that's if you don't count transition and subsequent court challenges.

Women are paid less on average because the distribution of female labor-hours amongst occupations is different than that of male labor-hours. Fewer women than men study mathematically-heavy majors such as engineering, physics, and economics, and since study in these fields often correlates with higher pay relative to study in other fields, the presence of fewer women in these fields pulls down the average pay of women.

Furthermore, the careers of many women are delayed due to childbirth (which usually correlates with marriage). A busy female executive's climb up the career ladder will be substantially delayed if her peers need to cover her responsibilities when she's on maternity leave. Careers delayed, or contingency plans made, due to childbirth also pulls down the average pay of women.

When you control for field of study, level of degree (bachelor's, master's, or doctorate), field of work, years of experience, and marital status, I'd bet you'd find that a woman's pay is no different than man's pay (at least in the United States). To give you an idea of what I mean by this, I remember reading that single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts.

[7S]

Women are paid less on average because the distribution of female labor-hours amongst occupations is different than that of male labor-hours.

In other words, men earn more because they work more, but even if you just consider the labor hours for men and women who just work 40 hours, disparities still exist. And those disparities contine to widen between men and women who work 40 hours or more.

Fewer women than men study mathematically-heavy majors such as engineering, physics, and economics, and since study in these fields often correlates with higher pay relative to study in other fields, the presence of fewer women in these fields pulls down the average pay of women.

True, and all the more reason to allow Affirmative Action programs to correct this disparity.

Furthermore, the careers of many women are delayed due to childbirth (which usually correlates with marriage). A busy female executive's climb up the career ladder will be substantially delayed if her peers need to cover her responsibilities when she's on maternity leave. Careers delayed, or contingency plans made, due to childbirth also pulls down the average pay of women.

Even when you consider only those contributions to "production labor," women still earn less than men on average. For example, in 2004, female accountants with 1-4 years of experience earned 72,534, while equally experienced men earn 94,314.

When you control for field of study, level of degree (bachelor's, master's, or doctorate), field of work, years of experience, and marital status, I'd bet you'd find that a woman's pay is no different than man's pay (at least in the United States). To give you an idea of what I mean by this, I remember reading that single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts.

According to the AAUP, which measures gender equity for faculty at over 1400 universities in the U.S., female full-professors with doctoral degrees earned 9.1% less than full male professors with doctoral degrees. Overall, female faculty with doctoral degrees in all ranks earned 78.1% of their male counterparts salaries. <http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/63396944-44BE-4ABA-9815-5792D93856F1/0/AAUPGenderEquityIndicators2006.pdf>

Additionally, I think it's telling that a single female professor is comparable to (I'm assuming because your post doesn't clarify) "single and married" male professors. What are the stats for female professors who are married? I mean women aren't married to themselves. Are these disparities transferrable to married men as well?

[reverendT]

Why does a disparity need to be corrected in the first place, as long as the opportunity is there for all who wish to embark on a chosen career.
If less women are CHOOSING scientific careers, for example, then it seems perfectly acceptable for less women to be employed in such a field.

Equal CHANCES for all does not always mean equal OUTCOME.

Everyone should have the same chance if possible.
We should not always expect equal outcome.

[7S]

Why does a disparity need to be corrected in the first place, as long as the opportunity is there for all who wish to embark on a chosen career.
If less women are CHOOSING scientific careers, for example, then it seems perfectly acceptable for less women to be employed in such a field.

Equal CHANCES for all does not always mean equal OUTCOME.

Everyone should have the same chance if possible.
We should not always expect equal outcome.

No one said anything about equal outcome. Fewer women are pursuing degrees in math in science. Why? Is it because women have been historically been confined to positions tradionally held for women? Is a career in math and science as accessible to women as it is for men? A gender-neutral policy won't yield equal chances for men and women.

[PNym]

Women are paid less on average because the distribution of female labor-hours amongst occupations is different than that of male labor-hours.

In other words, men earn more because they work more, but even if you just consider the labor hours for men and women who just work 40 hours, disparities still exist. And those disparities contine to widen between men and women who work 40 hours or more.

No, men earn more because they work in different occupations with different pre-requisites. And men don't have their careers delayed because of pregnancy or childbirth.

Anecdotal evidence from various business publications I've read also suggests that men are more willing than women to negotiate and play different offers against each other, which would also yield a higher salary. I have no idea how big of an effect this might be, though.

Fewer women than men study mathematically-heavy majors such as engineering, physics, and economics, and since study in these fields often correlates with higher pay relative to study in other fields, the presence of fewer women in these fields pulls down the average pay of women.

True, and all the more reason to allow Affirmative Action programs to correct this disparity.

Fewer women than men play professional football, and since entry into this profession correlates with higher pay relative to the pay in MANY other fields, the presence of fewer women playing professional football pull down the average pay of women relative to that of men.

Should the government or the NFL enact AA programs to correct this disparity?

Furthermore, the careers of many women are delayed due to childbirth (which usually correlates with marriage). A busy female executive's climb up the career ladder will be substantially delayed if her peers need to cover her responsibilities when she's on maternity leave. Careers delayed, or contingency plans made, due to childbirth also pulls down the average pay of women.

Even when you consider only those contributions to "production labor," women still earn less than men on average. For example, in 2004, female accountants with 1-4 years of experience earned 72,534, while equally experienced men earn 94,314.

That doesn't take into account the pregnancy effect.

For that matter, that statistic doesn't take into account the effects of differential sex ratios according to region, school, GPA, and probably a few other factors that might influence pay.

When you control for field of study, level of degree (bachelor's, master's, or doctorate), field of work, years of experience, and marital status, I'd bet you'd find that a woman's pay is no different than man's pay (at least in the United States). To give you an idea of what I mean by this, I remember reading that single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts.

According to the AAUP, which measures gender equity for faculty at over 1400 universities in the U.S., female full-professors with doctoral degrees earned 9.1% less than full male professors with doctoral degrees. Overall, female faculty with doctoral degrees in all ranks earned 78.1% of their male counterparts salaries. <http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/63396944-44BE-4ABA-9815-5792D93856F1/0/AAUPGenderEquityIndicators2006.pdf>

Additionally, I think it's telling that a single female professor is comparable to (I'm assuming because your post doesn't clarify) "single and married" male professors. What are the stats for female professors who are married? I mean women aren't married to themselves. Are these disparities transferrable to married men as well?

In which fields did the professors in the AAUP study earn their degrees in? A professor with a PhD in advanced engineering physics will earn more than one with a PhD in English, no matter what sex the professor is.

Furthermore, were the professors married? Pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing responsibilities have historically been the domain of the wife. Even if you disagree with this norm, you must agree that these responsibilities, if adhered to by a female professor, will affect her career advancement. (For example, my Genetics lecturer, who was a phenomenal teacher, gave up on pursuing a full professorship because she wanted to spend time with her two kids, and the amount of research she would have to do in order to maintain her position would prevent her from spending as much time with them as she wanted to. Her husband, on the other hand, was content to fulfill the full responsibilities of professorship.)

I honestly don't remember too many specifics about the study I mentioned (the one which examined average salary earned when marital status, field of study, and level of degree were held constant between the two sexes of college professors), so I can't tell you off the top of my head whether the comparison was between single female professors and male professors or single female professors and single male professors. I'd wager the difference between the former case and the latter case wouldn't be very pronounced, because of the historical expectation that women, and not men, are primarily responsible for childraising. (Not saying I agree with this, but it IS an effect other than discrimination that would account for the pay disparity.)

(You can ding me for my faulty memory if you want; I had merely been browsing the book in which I found the study, and so I only remember the more memorable parts of that book.)

[PNym]

No one said anything about equal outcome. Fewer women are pursuing degrees in math in science. Why? Is it because women have been historically been confined to positions tradionally held for women? Is a career in math and science as accessible to women as it is for men? A gender-neutral policy won't yield equal chances for men and women.

Larry Summers thinks that one plausible (but unstudied) explanation is that there are fewer women than men who are intelligent far beyond the norm, because the standard deviation of female test scores tends to be smaller than that of men (conversely, if this holds true, there are fewer women than men who are stupid far beyond the norm). This explanation could merit additional study; unfortunately, the Harvard feminists instead asked for Summers' head on a platter, and got it.

FWIW, anecdotal evidence suggests that women are interested in different subjects than men. Again, this explanation is another non-discriminatory factor that would account for the difference in sex ratios in students studying math and science.

[Lindbergh]

Men and women apparently have different brain makeups, as Summers pointed out.  Both genders, on average, have different strengths and weaknesses. Women, on average, appear less suited to mathmatics / engineering.  Not sure why we should force people into professions they're not suited to.

Also, the pay disparity is likely due to the fact that women devote far more time and energy to the household and children then men.  This is probably partly due to biology, and maybe partly due to socialization.  But whatever the reason, forcing businesses to pay more for someone who works less makes no sense whatsoever.

[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.