Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Morning News

1

Well, if the women get married, then there's that problem solved.

Posted by Ziggity | January 3, 2008 7:45 AM
2

Yaaay! The recipe's use of "toasts" to mean "pieces of toast" made me pee my pantses! So warm.

Posted by tomasyalba | January 3, 2008 7:50 AM
3

What they didn't mention at all in the pay gap story, of course: controlling for choice of major/discipline. If more women are opting for degrees that tend to pay less, this result doesn't mean much.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 8:27 AM
4

Dear lord, TSM. Please read this: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/what-is-the-gender-gap/

It will lead you to lots of excellent resources that will answer all your burning questions on that exact issue. This is, of course, assuming you are actually interested in learning about these issues.

Posted by exelizabeth | January 3, 2008 8:38 AM
5

And for something a little wonkier, you can read this:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fs7nOQAUXQwJ:www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

Posted by exelizabeth | January 3, 2008 8:39 AM
6

Women tend to get low-paying jobs after college, such as "businesswoman" or "woman working in biotech." Men are more financially responsible and opt for more lucrative jobs, such as "businessman" or "man working in biotech."

Posted by jamier | January 3, 2008 8:41 AM
7

A tough prosecutor appointed for the investigation of the CIA tapes, but not as a special prosecutor. I wonder how that will work. Is there any way for the Democratic Congress to force a switch in the designation?

Posted by left coast | January 3, 2008 8:53 AM
8

Did the study account for women who left the workforce to have children?

Posted by SeriousQuestion | January 3, 2008 9:12 AM
9

Although you were no doubt positively itching to assume, "dear lady" exelizabeth, that I was denying a pay gap existed and to pull out the links - so that you could let off a nice condescending sigh and pull out your bookmark file, no doubt - that was not the point of my comment at all. I can buy that a discrimination-related pay gap exists. I'm simply not sure this particular study accurately depicts what it is, because it doesn't seem to control for choice of discipline.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 9:36 AM
10

But an Art History degree is priceless!

Posted by Art History major | January 3, 2008 9:42 AM
11

@6, yes, any evidence of a disproportionate result is evidence of discrimination. What other cause could there be? Even to suggest a non-discrimination explanation is discrimination.


Look at the justice system. Wildly disproportionate results -- that certainly prove discrimination. Right?

That's why we know the system heavily discriminates against males -- because 90% of all people on death row and in jail or charged with violent crimes, are males. There is no need to look beyond the outcomes to find out if there is discrimination or not.

Same with the NBA. Obviously there are fewer Asians, Jews and whites compared to the population, so the only explanation must be the NBA discriminates against those groups.
If we had to look deeper than the disproprotionate results, why that'd be more work, too.

Posted by unPC | January 3, 2008 9:43 AM
12

#8: Exactly. Jesus, I'm sick of this bullshit pay gap statistic. This is a more appropriate explanation:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=621

Posted by Jason Josephes | January 3, 2008 9:45 AM
13

Also, the same author has also composed a list of 39 jobs where women make more than men.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/28/commentary/everyday/sahadi_paytable/index.htm

Posted by Jason Josephes | January 3, 2008 9:45 AM
14

@10: *cries*

Posted by Gloria | January 3, 2008 9:46 AM
15

@10 your comment is priceless. Sweet!
I'm currently going for an MFA in Dart History. Look for my book's review in the inspiring and A.D.D. oriented New Yorker and NYT!

Posted by groot | January 3, 2008 9:49 AM
16

the sierra club had it coming

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 3, 2008 9:58 AM
17

@11,

Of course, and the fact that prisons are packed with black and Latino men doesn't indicate any discrimination at all.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 3, 2008 9:59 AM
18

over the past few weeks this blog has been wack.

no excuses - it is your job - provide us content.

Posted by cochise. | January 3, 2008 10:04 AM
19

"[Tasers are] a last resort before you have to go hands on," [the trooper] said.

Use of sometime lethal force is appropriate before physical restraint?

Posted by Anon | January 3, 2008 10:12 AM
20

Here's the kind of reporting that comes from waiting a day before going into blog speculation mode:

"Harps worked for the Sierra Club in Seattle and some co-workers have said a male volunteer there showed an interest in Harps. But Witt said detectives have spoken with that man and have ruled him out as having any involvement."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/345906_capitolhill04.html

Posted by Trevor | January 3, 2008 10:12 AM
21

@4 - That link focuses on dangerous jobs, but what about high-paying tech jobs, such as engineering? I am an engineer, and engineering school was a swordfight at the sausage farm. Men outnumbered women about 10 to 1 (and, the school did more than its part to recruit women).

Engineering is one of the rare disciplines where a Bachelor's degree can actually get you a job in that field, so even recent college grads make a decent salary. I'm sure engineers alone could skew the results for post-graduate debt.

Like tsm, I absolutely do not deny that a pay gap exists. However, I also agree that this college-debt statistic isn't necessarily evidence of that pay gap.

Posted by Mahtli69 | January 3, 2008 10:12 AM
22

Nader supports Edwards? Interesting!

Kucinich supports Obama? Huh?

Posted by Mahtli69 | January 3, 2008 10:20 AM
23

@22 Oops!

Posted by Mahtli69 | January 3, 2008 10:22 AM
24

It really is unfortunate to see the Nader hate oozing from the mouth of everybody who dares utter his name around these parts.

Nader's endorsement of Edwards means a hell of a lot to me. Considering Nader is anti-corporate to his core (as opposed to most of the Democrats, especially the leading members of the party who live and breathe corporate sponsorships) his endorsement of a top candidate should speak volumes.

Nader-haters can't see the forest for the trees. They're just party hacks uninterested in ideology and more concerned (inexplicably) with winning elections that won't impact meaningful change. They're buying into the Machiavellian realpolitik line of the Democratic party without a second though. Unfortunately "alternative" publications such as the Stranger seem every bit as prone to political manipulation as most of the mainstream media.

I hope that you learn to stand up for your core ideological beliefs some day (that is directed at any of you who would mindlessly bash Nader while endorsing Clinton/Obama/etc... and simultaneously speaking highly of civil rights for the LGBTQ community or meaningful healthcare reform or tough environmental policy or better election standards or any number of important progressive positions).

Posted by Fonky | January 3, 2008 10:30 AM
25

it would be interesting to view the gender split between public and private schools, too.

I graduated from SU, where the female/male ration is something like 2/1.

i've also read articles in the chronicle of higher ed that have explored this phenomenon in private universities.

at private schools the tuition is much higher, my fellow grads and I all have mountains of debt.

contrast this with public schools, which are much cheaper.

if more women go to private schools, it would make sense that they would have more debt.

or yet another question, do those figures include community colleges as well?

if more men go to CC than women, then it would make sense that their tuition would be less.

in fact, the higher debt women accrue could indicate that women are receiving higher quality educations than men, which would seem to be supported by their disproportionate numbers at American universities.

but all of this is just baseless speculation.

you can't make any inferences based on dollars alone without any context.

Posted by college grad | January 3, 2008 10:33 AM
26

uh, what's up with SLOG?

No new threads since 7am?!?!?!?

Posted by michael strangeways | January 3, 2008 10:34 AM
27

The second link provided by exelizabeth supports tsm, not exelizabeth. Their conclusion: "Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men. Other factors that account for earnings differences include industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure."

As Mahtli69 points out, her first link doesn't address tsm's concern either. He (I am assuming that tsm is a 'he' and exelizabeth is a 'she', please correct me if I am wrong) didn't say anything about dangerous jobs or hazard pay. As that link points out, dangerous jobs earn less, not more, and are proportionately done by men, not women.

It's interesting that in some fields the tide is turning. Women make up more than half of college graduates now, but they make up an overwhelming majority of law school graduates, and a proportionate chunk of law firm hires, and young female lawyers (as opposed to partners) make significantly MORE than their male counterparts. In law, thus difference isn't likely to show up at the highest income level for decades; partners are usually old. Also, law partners at some of the richest firms are rewarded not for their lawyering but for their skill at bringing in corporate and political clients off of the golf course. It remains to be seen whether women can or will play that game (schmoozing, not golf). But it is a commonplace nowadays that women make better lawyers.

But in engineering, women just aren't interested. Engineering schools have bent over backwards to attract women students, but women just don't do math, science, or engineering. Why? Nobody knows.

Posted by Fnarf | January 3, 2008 10:34 AM
28

@20 -- Uh-oh...

"Mr. Frizzelle, there's a Richard Jewell on line one."

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do!

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | January 3, 2008 10:36 AM
29

#21: Why aren't more men in nursing? Nursing is probably more lucrative than engineering right now, yet only 1 in 20 registered nurses are men. Instead, men are flocking to "fun" careers like making video games and editing newspapers.

Of course, this is because there are huge cultural barriers and taboos for men to become nurses and women to become engineers, and often for black people and other minorities to go to college altogether.

The only reason women dominate nursing is because only recently has it become a well-respected, lucrative field. In most cases, men long ago established dominance in well-paying fields like engineering and finance and created barriers for women to gain entry and succeed.

Posted by jamier | January 3, 2008 10:42 AM
30

@29

that explains why I'm so screwed up. Both me mom and dady-o weres Nurses.

mom not so bad (she got me my first job after lawnmowing/snow shoveling - nurse asst at old folks home)
but dad?! my gender and oppresssed identity failures are a direct result!!

Posted by groot | January 3, 2008 10:51 AM
31
But in engineering, women just aren't interested. Engineering schools have bent over backwards to attract women students, but women just don't do math, science, or engineering. Why? Nobody knows.

BS! More women than men now major in Microbiology, biology, and pre-medicine (along with actual medical school). About 47% of math majors are women. It has nothing to do with what women like or are good at. Some fields, especially engineering, are just plain hostile towards women.

Posted by jamier | January 3, 2008 10:55 AM
32

@29 -


Why aren't more men in nursing? Nursing is probably more lucrative than engineering right now

Sorry, no. The starting salaries of engineers in all fields are typically higher than nurses.

In most cases, men long ago established dominance in well-paying fields like engineering and finance and created barriers for women to gain entry and succeed.

I call bullshit on this. Universities bend over backwards, in my experience, to recruit women in technical fields. To the extent that women are shoved away from tech fields, I'd argue it happens much earlier on in schooling, when kids are young. That's unfortunate, and most certainly needs to be addressed, but it's not quite the same as saying that disciplines are actively discriminating against women or trying to shut them out.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 10:59 AM
33

@29 -

Why aren't more men in nursing?

Hmmm ... clean bed pans, design video games, clean bed pans, design video games. Tough choice!

@31 - Microbiology and pre-med are not even close to the same thing as engineering. And math majors? If you get a BS in Math (or is it a BA?), you might as well get a degree in Fine Arts! BS in Microbiology? If you're not pre-med, then can you find a job with this degree? And if you are pre-med, then good for you, but you are going to rack up 10's of thousands more in debt (again skewing this study).

Again, I agree with tsm regarding universities going out of their way to recruit women into engineering. However, this isn't necessarily true of engineering employers. As @27 mentioned, the upper management of law firms are a bunch of old (white, male) farts, and the same is true of engineering companies. While many companies do go out of their way to recruit women, the opportunities for advancement aren't necessarily the same once they are there. I'm not sure if this is what keeps women out of the field, however.

Posted by Mahtli69 | January 3, 2008 11:31 AM
34
However, this isn't necessarily true of engineering employers. As @27 mentioned, the upper management of law firms are a bunch of old (white, male) farts, and the same is true of engineering companies. While many companies do go out of their way to recruit women, the opportunities for advancement aren't necessarily the same once they are there.

True, the tech industry is probably more hostile to women than the academic setting. But are female undergraduates specifically avoiding technical fields because of the fear of sexism once they get out of college? Maybe, but that doesn't seem to fit my own experience - I was a TA, and the female students I had just never have even seemed to consider fields like computer science as a possibility for them at all. That points more to deficiencies in early education, in my mind.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 11:50 AM
35

#33: Nurse's assistants or healthcare staff are the ones who clean bed pans these days.

Universities might have "women in tech" fairs and post flyers, but that doesn't change the underlying culture. Imagine being a boy joining a high school cheerleading squad (without any hetero teenage boy lust), and you have an rough idea of the cultural barriers women in engineering face.

Posted by jamier | January 3, 2008 12:04 PM
36

@34, @35 - I agree with @34 that it is rare to find women who are even remotely interested in engineering as a profession. Is this cultural, due to differences in early education, or are men and women typically wired differently? (GASP ... there, I said it!)

I will add that while engineers make more money coming out of the gate, it is one of the more blue-collar of the white-collar professions. Their typical salaries are surpassed by other fields farther down the line. Once someone reaches their prime earning years, lawyers, doctors, and MBA-types will be dwarfing the engineers' salaries. Yet, the lawyers, doctors, and MBA-types most likely accumulated far more debt in college and, accordingly, took longer to pay it off.

Posted by Mahtli69 | January 3, 2008 12:46 PM
37

The link to the Guardian story on student debt is broken. This one worked, though:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2234063,00.html

Posted by Ryan | January 3, 2008 3:01 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).