I take it you are incredulous because you have lots of evidence at your fingertips that you can easily summarize and display.

Please proceed.

However, if you have research that indicates otherwise, then please let me know.

What????? Are you serious?

“I should clarify what I refer to as discrimination. Having cultural expectations is not a discrimination, but it can result in one. And that is what I believe is happening.”

What you should clarify is that what you are referring to as discrimination is not discrimination. Discrimination is something one person does to another, not something one does to oneself to please others. That can be just as bad, but it is not discrimination, and more importantly, it is up to the person who is distorting their behavior to stop it.

So if a woman earns less because she decides to take time off from work for preganacy or to raise her children, or if after returning to “full-time” work she takes time off form that here and ther (not really full time anymore , is it?) that is her decision alone and she is responsible for it. It is manifestly stupid to ask her boss to make up the difference between her the work she actually accomplishes and what he/she pays her when in all probablity the boss never told her to have that child in the first place.

And all these pleas will be a lot more convincing when the same people complaining how women are underpaid start complaining how men are cut out of child-rearing - complaining about lack or ineqaulity of paternity leave, start complaining about inequality in who gets child custody and who gets cut of their children’s lives, start complaining about disparities in workplace injuries and deaths.

“The wage gap rather depends on the fact that men and women tend to work at different positions. But why is it so? You say that women tend to make lifestyle choices that prioritizes family and raising children, I say that they are discriminated because they are expected by everyone to make those choices. Probably it is a combination of both.”

Why is it that your seem to think that men are NOT discriminated even though they are expected, as you put it, by everyone to make the choices they make? (sacrificing health, love, nearness with their own children etc, for a career and beeing a good provider for the family)

If I where to choose what I felt was more important; career or a happy, loving life, i would choose the latter. In a theoretical dichotomy setup, I would claim that men are socialised to give up more important values than women, thus if anyone is a victim and discriminated, it would be men. Right?

“There are also psychological reasons for me to hire the male candidate. I will more likely connect personally to the male candidate since we are the same sex. As a man I see man as a norm, something familiar and safe that I can trust and visualise in the position that I’m hiring to, while women is to me more of a gamble.”

You are making a few assumptions I do not agree with. And since Ive been part of the employment process a few times, id like to share my experiences:

Assumptions I do not agree with:
1. Men automatically connects with other men.
- This seems very strange to me. Personally I usually connect better with women. From a genderroll-view, men and women complement eachother, whereas men compete with eachother. So while this assumption will be true sometimes, the opposite will probably be true as often. And ofcourse, most of the time, the potential employer will be professional enough not to let any “connectivety” occur in the first place.

2. When merits are the same, “connectivety” is a/the deciding factor.
- Quite the contrary, most of the time any avaiable position have a specific profile that is wanted. That means characteristics that suits that particular position aswell as the company as a whole. Just because you like somebody does not mean that that somebody suits the job.

3. Its a one man show.
- Who is hired is not a one man decision in most cases. Usually there is a group of relevant employees that discuss the pros and cons of the interesting candidates before a conclusion is reached and a decision made. The influence of any one individual is not great, and the group most often consists of both men and women.

4. The assumption that only men are hiring.
- In moste cases the company boss is not involved in the hiring process, but the “empolyee-boss”. Who more often than not is a woman. By your reasoning that would ascertain that it is a female norm that affects the hiring process, but it is my experience and belief that most companes are more profiessional than that.

Just a metalhead:

I agree on your critique on the postmodern theory of science. Its a relative viewpoint, and is heavily dependent on the academic honesty of the scientist.

Yes, complexity is important indeed, and currently all complexity in the gender debate tends to be reduced to the slogans: women are oppressed, women are victims, men are unjustly getting advantages.

Even considering factors such that women have personal choice and that there are biological sex differences, add new dimensions of complexity to the discussion about wages, and other gender discussions. Another factor that adds complexity is the observation that both gender roles are constricted, and face hardships due to those constrictions.

Your comment was held for moderation, sorry that I missed it… Here it is (and you can see it above now too):

“Companies may not be interested in paying above “market rate”, but they are very interested in paying below it. Less aggressive negotiators risk being paid well below market rate.

I do think there have been studies done in this area, for example a quick google search turned up this: http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr_page=3&ch_id=402&article_id=7286802&cat_id=1102

My own analysis of pay rate data suggests to me that there is a small otherwise ‘unexplained’ impact (1%-3%) from this, but nothing like the 75 cents in the dollar as is often stated.”

Great comment.

I guess will have to see over time if research can show whether this phenomenon has an impact on salaries. According to Warren Farrell’s research women now earn *more* than men, all other factors being equal.

But it would be very interesting to hear how you arrived at the 1%-3% impact on salaries, if it’s not too much work to explain.

For example I recall Swedish media reporting: Getting married reduces womens salaries, based on the fact that married women on avarage earned less than unmarried. Anyone heard of a woman getting a pay cut when she returned after the honeymoon?

Of course there are a number of reasons for the difference in salaries between men and women, and not a single “universal discriminator”.

I.e. Kristian and Metalhead: Maybe its neither “A resulting from B” nor “B resulting from A”, but instead A and B resulting from a combination of C, D, E…Z

Stating the obvious, society is a complex entity. Hence all analysis will be nothing more than (over)simplifications. This also forms the basis for subjective interpretations (call it post modernism or something else).

All simplifications (approximations) will be based on some assumption or experience, thus lending itself to tweaking “by belief”.

————————————————————————————

Actually there are other equally questionable conclusions beeing drawn in other scientific disciplines. Take for example medicine where obesity is said to

1) Cause diabetes type II
2) Cardio-vascular problems

These conclusions are drawn because “fat people” have a statistically high occurance of those problems.

Recent studies however may show that the cause effect may(!) instead be:
insuline resitance -> cardiovascular problems and/OR obesity, i e exactly what
i describe above: A and B resulting from some previously “unknown” or disregarded C instead of one causing the other.

Obviously medicine is also a discipline involved with the study of “a complex entity” and as such it is easy and tempting to construct easily explainable cause-effect relationships.

That’s quite a straw man you are attacking in you two first paragraphs. Do you deny every new aspect and perspective that comes from postmodern critique!?
But yes, we are in quicksand. Get used.

You say that b) is a consequence of a) just because that is rational.
I say that a) is a consequence of b), because that is rational.

Now, why is your rationality more rational than mine?”

I have a clear unfavorable prejudice against anything coming from post-modernism and I’m proud of it. I don’t discard it out of hand, but very few elements coming from post-modernism withstand the test of rationality if you step back from the clear subjective perspective of the one who did the analysis. I do believe that objectivity, or at least diminished subjectivity, is an attainable goal. I demonstrated it by talking about how some say that the workplace was made for the benefits of men only, I took away the “male” and “female” aspects and posed the question in a gender-neutral fashion. If the answer had been different, I might have accepted the conclusion that feminists propose and tried to see how it works, but as it stands, there is no way it can withstand the test.

As to whose rationality is best, that is not the question. In a discussion like this, you describe the rational steps of your reflection and expose your assumptions so that other people can follow your reasoning. If you made a logical false step or you made an assumption that is unsupported, then hopefully they call you out on it and you refine your reflection, letting it go where it has to, maybe changing your conclusion. That’s the way you achieve consensus about reality (or close enough).

As to your A) and B), which are you talking about? The ones you posted before with the informal networks and al? I think that both feed each other, neither is a direct consequence of the other. Men tend to work harder, so this helps them get a foot in the door of the informal networks and big responsibility, and when they’ve been given them, they have to work harder to face those bigger responsibilities. If they start letting go, then they start leaving the informal networks and get assigned to other tasks, meaning they get to work even less. I don’t see why one has to be the direct cause of the other. Prejudice may make it harder for women to start a career, but when they are in, the prejudice is much lessened because people know more about her individually. The problem is typically getting the door opened.