Always with the multi-part replies when talking to Devi. :)nightwind69March 7 2007, 05:36:44 UTC
I think it all comes down to the fact that women cost more for employers to employ. This I have long suspected and now know for a fact, now that I am privy to the health insurance premiums for each employee of my company. Considering just the employer-paid portion of health insurance premiums, not even addressing productivity, women cost more than men. For instance, coworker and I are in roughly the same age bracket (He's about 8 years older than me, actually), both without pre-existing conditions, neither of us smokers. He's male, I'm female. The portion of his premium that the company pays is roughly three-quarters that of mine, even though he's older than me. Why? Because I'm still of child-bearing age, and even though I have zero intention of having a child, the possibility exists that I will. And the insurers know it. The insurers also know that pregnancy care is very costly. BUT, the insurer can't discriminate against women who DO intend to have children by charging them more, so they therefore have to charge the same for every woman of child-bearing age, all other conditions being equal. Again, is this "fair?" Not really. Again, it just is.
And there might be other factors, too. But these two issues -- particularly the latter one -- I'm sure play into it. From what I've seen, these are largely ignored when the issue comes up in feminist circles, which is one reason why I have a problem with feminist circles. They tend to deal with ideals; I prefer reality.
We women aren't "the cause of the problem".
As I said, in this regard, we are. Or they are, as the case may be. :) These women are choosing to have kids yet still try to work full time, knowing that their children, of course, will always come first. (As they should, of course!) As I said to Whirlwind, I know that in many cases these women have no choice, and it's a sucky situation all around.
But, to turn the fairness argument around, why should companies pay people who cost them more money and productivity time the same amount as people who cause no such problem? Is that fair? I don't think so. But the problem, I think, is that you can't discriminate against just certain members of a gender (i.e. single moms who usually have to work and have no support from the father(s) of their kid(s).). That would cause even more of an uproar than discriminating against all women in general, even though it would be, IMO, the fairest solution.
(By the same token, I say pay smokers less than non-smokers. They cost in productivity, too, with their "smoking breaks." In another company I worked for, I was the back-up phone-answerer for the receptionist. The receptionist was a heavy smoker. She took a smoke break pretty much every hour, for about five or ten minutes at a time. That's 40-80 minutes a day, the upper end of which makes for almost a whole DAY of work lost per week because of this person's habit. Yet, she didn't get paid any less for it, and I didn't get paid any more for doing the work that she should have been doing on that whole day of smoking break. That's not fair at all...but, again, it's just how it is.)
Why are women with children considered less reliable by employers (due to possibly having to stay home to care for a sick child, etc.), but married fathers are considered more reliable (due to having a wife to have their back)? Think about it.
Because, as I said, married fathers generally are more reliable employees than married mothers, from a non-emotional point-of-view. For whatever reason, it's usually Mom who bugs out of work when Johnny barfs all over the hallway at school. Not Dad. Again, as I said, this is just how it is, at least in my experience. We can debate about why it is if you'd like, but in the end, for the purposes of this discussion, the "why" is beside the point. Payroll departments deal in how it is, not how it should be. Unless and until the "how it is" changes, I personally doubt there will be much change in the differential between men's and women's pay rates.
Re: Always with the multi-part replies when talking to Devi. :)ravenclaw_deviMarch 7 2007, 11:06:02 UTC
While I can see where you're coming from, I still don't feel that inequality of any kind should be seen as someting that "just is," but I don't want to get into a huge debate either.
And there might be other factors, too. But these two issues -- particularly the latter one -- I'm sure play into it. From what I've seen, these are largely ignored when the issue comes up in feminist circles, which is one reason why I have a problem with feminist circles. They tend to deal with ideals; I prefer reality.
We women aren't "the cause of the problem".
As I said, in this regard, we are. Or they are, as the case may be. :) These women are choosing to have kids yet still try to work full time, knowing that their children, of course, will always come first. (As they should, of course!) As I said to Whirlwind, I know that in many cases these women have no choice, and it's a sucky situation all around.
But, to turn the fairness argument around, why should companies pay people who cost them more money and productivity time the same amount as people who cause no such problem? Is that fair? I don't think so. But the problem, I think, is that you can't discriminate against just certain members of a gender (i.e. single moms who usually have to work and have no support from the father(s) of their kid(s).). That would cause even more of an uproar than discriminating against all women in general, even though it would be, IMO, the fairest solution.
(By the same token, I say pay smokers less than non-smokers. They cost in productivity, too, with their "smoking breaks." In another company I worked for, I was the back-up phone-answerer for the receptionist. The receptionist was a heavy smoker. She took a smoke break pretty much every hour, for about five or ten minutes at a time. That's 40-80 minutes a day, the upper end of which makes for almost a whole DAY of work lost per week because of this person's habit. Yet, she didn't get paid any less for it, and I didn't get paid any more for doing the work that she should have been doing on that whole day of smoking break. That's not fair at all...but, again, it's just how it is.)
Why are women with children considered less reliable by employers (due to possibly having to stay home to care for a sick child, etc.), but married fathers are considered more reliable (due to having a wife to have their back)? Think about it.
Because, as I said, married fathers generally are more reliable employees than married mothers, from a non-emotional point-of-view. For whatever reason, it's usually Mom who bugs out of work when Johnny barfs all over the hallway at school. Not Dad. Again, as I said, this is just how it is, at least in my experience. We can debate about why it is if you'd like, but in the end, for the purposes of this discussion, the "why" is beside the point. Payroll departments deal in how it is, not how it should be. Unless and until the "how it is" changes, I personally doubt there will be much change in the differential between men's and women's pay rates.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment