Women In The World Subject N°1

syl

syl

Ancient Mariner
Taking the example of France, the situation of women has seen major advances in the 70’s and 80’s, with the reduction of the gender gap in employment , especially for the salaries.
But recent studies had shown that the gender wage gap has widened since the 90’s and that new forms of discriminations have appeared with the economic crisis we’re going through.

The gender wage gap stands at 20% since 1990 in disadvantage of women.
They will have less opportunities to access to a job with responsibilities and their wages will increase slower during their carrier. The average wage gap is 8,5% at the beginning of their carreer but increases to 26% after 5 years and to 35% at the end.
I also have to point out that women are more often under-employed than men.
Women are also more employed in part-time jobs than men and they were more affected by the increase of part-time working in the 90’s.
The consequences of this inequality is that more and more women decide to stop working.

As far as I’m concerned, I have always been under-employed. Thus my husband and I have the same level of instruction but he earns much more money than me. To be more precise, when we settled together 7 years ago, he was participating to 62% of our global income and I was participating to 38%. Today we’re participating respectively to 71% and 29%, due to the fact that his salary has increased over the years and that my salary has decreased because I was more or less “forced” to take a part-time job after the birth of our 1st child and because I work on a bonus system and my boss cut off definitely my bonus when he learnt I was pregnant.
I made up my accounts over the last 6 months and I discovered that I was loosing 60euro/month. What’s probably going to happen is that I’ll stop working sooner or later and live on family allowances which would be much more interesting financially.

I talked about my situation to 15 of my female friends and relatives and 2 of them stopped working, 10 admitted that they were in the same situation and that they keep on working because they like their jobs or they couldn’t imagine themselves inactive at home.

I think that the main factor that briddles women in their carreer is the possibility of motherhood. I have never been to a job interview, nor none of my female friends, without being asked the fatal question : “Do you have or do you plan to have children ?” I say fatal because there’s no good answer to that question. Whether you don’t answer at all and you’re sure not to get the job. Whether you answer “yes” and then your potential employer thinks that he’d better employed a man even if you can proove that you’ll be able to work and bring up your children at the same time. Whether you answer “no” and then he thinks you’re a freak and that he’d rather employed a normal person.
Needless to say that none of my male friends had ever have to answer such a question.

Several laws have been voted during the last 3 decades in order to reduce the gap between men and women but they didn’t really have any effects.

Now tell me boys and girls, do you face the same situation in your country ? Is it better ? Is it worse ? Is there any kind of action in your country in favor of women employment?

Here’s a link to Eironline with datas and analysis on gender gap in Europe.
 
There is a wage gap in Canada as well. My wife works very long hours. She had children when she was 19 years old. Two daughters who are now young teenagers. Its early but I sense they are more inclined towards career as opposed to family. This is not uncommon and goes a long way to explaining why birth rates in industrialized countries are falling at an alarming rate. Canada has to import skilled workers, or attempts to reach its immigration quotas but falls short every year by 2/3s.

I don't have stats but I think that women here have a better chance of employment not due to any equity laws but by a shortage of skilled workers and a stong economy. In this scenario workers are more free to set the terms of employment. My wife came to Canada as a refugee from South East Asia as a child, and does okay. Long hours and low pay but okay for a person with no post seconday education and English as second language and no French. We would do better if there were more women in elected government. We do have strong equity laws. What has made a difference is more women than ever are going to post secondary education and the education system is paying close attention to girls.

From what I here France has a real problem by not allowing its immigrants to participate in the economy. Hence the slums gangs and burning cars whilst the white middle aged people are doing very well but keeping others out.
 
I don't know any statistics for the USA, but I don't think the gender map is nearly as bad as it is in other places. For example, federal jobs hire based off of affirmative action a lot, thats why at the DMV (Department of Motorized Vehicles), Post office, etc.; there are a lot of female minority workers. However, I think people's heritage plays a factor in the gender gap. My entire family and relatives are mexican, and very few of the females in my family work. I only have three aunts that have a job, the rest of the females in my family don't work. Both my grandmothers never worked in the USA and in fact never even learned how to drive a car. The point I'm trying to make is that heritage and race does play a factor.
 
I totally agree with people who think women and men, blacks and whites, Jews and Eskimos, (you get the idea) should get equal pay for doing the same work. It's just common sense.
In Canada, it is mandated by law that two people of equal qualifications and experience doing the same job and performing to the same level MUST recieve equal pay. I don't know exactly how this is enforced, but I think it is regulated by the Human Rights Comission. For government employees, they can easily file a grievence with their union (usually CUPE or a provincial equivilent).

However, one must consider the employer's side as well. When an employer hires a man, there is very little chance that he will miss work to look after/give birth to a child. A woman, on the other hand, is much more likely to take time off. This costs the employer money, because he then has to pay her even though she's not working. Even if she doesn't get maternity benefits, the employer has to hire a new person and retrain him/her to do the same job, which costs extra money as well.
Women, therefore, do not usually get the "good" jobs, and have to settle for part-time or lower-paying employment. They earn less income, which leads to imbalances in decision making at the family level (Remember the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.)

Businesses are there to make money, above all else. And, on average, for most jobs it is more cost-effective to hire a man than a woman. (This is strictly from an economic perspective, not a moral one)

Is it fair? No. Is it right? No. Does it happen all the time? Yep.
 
As far as I've seen in my Sociology classes, the U.S is the worst place to have a family, women, like Syl says happens in france, are punished for having families, with less pay, their job is not guaranteed after they return from maternity leave, maternity leave is the shortest compared to other western countries, the benefits are horrible and they are torn between wanting to move forward in their jobs and being a "good" mother. And the gab is quite large, however I don't have the exact numbers with me.
 
You know Iron Duke , there's something wrong in what you've said about the employer's interest and what I've said about pregnancy because the problem of pregnancy dissapears when the woman is 40 or 45 years old. Then why does the wage gap in France keep on increasing until the end of the women's carreer ? That's not logical. The logic would be that the wage gap decreases in the last 20 years of a carreer. Therefore there must be something else, don't you think ?
 
In Canada women can take a time off and collect Employment insurance (it's really unemployment insurance) and her position has to be held. Governments also have subsidised daycare spaces, although the new government wants to remove the subsidies and increase family allowance cheques. My personal opinion is that subsidised daycare is more beneficial in that it allows women to work if they want to. Instaed of the government offering free beer and pizza every month until the children reach 6 years old.

Men can also take time off and collect unemploment insurance. One year per family or 6 months each.

I think it really comes down to getting a marketable skill or trade, or if a woman is luckey enough to get work with a strong union, although this is becoming increasingly harder to do. Getting the education and experiance is hard going at first but pays off in the long run. This also attributes to why many women choose not to have children and be equal participants in the economy. Hence falling birthrates. Men certainly don't want to give up the cash to sat home and look after the kids.

I agree that wokers in the US are not that well off. No universal health and legislated vacation time. It would be awful to be chained to a dead end job just because of the private health insurance. I work in the dental business, the epitomy of private health care, and we definatley gouge the consumer err.. patient.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129443:date=Feb 21 2006, 11:40 PM:name=syl)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(syl @ Feb 21 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]129443[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
You know Iron Duke , there's something wrong in what you've said about the employer's interest and what I've said about pregnancy because the problem of pregnancy dissapears when the woman is 40 or 45 years old. Then why does the wage gap in France keep on increasing until the end of the women's carreer ? That's not logical. The logic would be that the wage gap decreases in the last 20 years of a carreer. Therefore there must be something else, don't you think ?
[/quote]

Let me spell out the unfortunate word that we are both thinking: sexism.
 
hmm, I was thinking sexy close enough? [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":D\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=129323:date=Feb 19 2006, 09:44 PM:name=Mario88)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Mario88 @ Feb 19 2006, 09:44 PM) [snapback]129323[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I don't know any statistics for the USA, but I don't think the gender map is nearly as bad as it is in other places.
[/quote]
Allow me to school you, boy. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":p\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /]
I seem to recall that on average women in the US earn 80% of what men earn for the same job. The issue is not whether or not women can get jobs; the issue is their salary.

I have a feeling that a bit of searching on the web can reveal some more specific facts.

/me goes searching...

You can use this time to get yourself a tasty cup of coffee.

/me still searching...

But don't take too long.

OK, I'm back!
Facts about gender gap in USA, courtesy of Wikipedia. The article contains references to more sources.

There ya go. Consider thyself pwned. ::
 
Probably some people think that treating both sexes (I am just bluntly ignoring hermaphrodites now) equal is Communism...
 
It works both ways though. In Britain at the moment, the Pension age for men is 65, while it is only 60 for women. Fair/equal? Fortunately, it is being changed and by 2020 it will be 65 for both sexes. Just a thought.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129570:date=Feb 23 2006, 08:33 AM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Feb 23 2006, 08:33 AM) [snapback]129570[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Probably some people think that treating both sexes (I am just bluntly ignoring hermaphrodites now) equal is Communism...
[/quote]
It depends what type of work it is (obviously). I don't think it would be fair to pay a woman the same as a man working on a construction site if the woman does less work. Communism is treating people equally when they are not. Men and women have obvious biological differences and can't be expected to do some jobs with the same effort and output.
 
You're talking about jobs that have certain physical requirements that both sexes cannot provide equally. But what about jobs were brain-power is required? Journalists, scientists, computer programmers, teachers, etc.

With the same qualifications and experience, I don't see any reason why a woman should earn less than a man. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sleep.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"-_-\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sleep.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=129618:date=Feb 23 2006, 05:03 PM:name=Maverick)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Feb 23 2006, 05:03 PM) [snapback]129618[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
But what about jobs were brain-power is required? Journalists, scientists, computer programmers, teachers, etc.
With the same qualifications and experience, I don't see any reason why a woman should earn less than a man. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sleep.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"-_-\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sleep.gif\" /]
[/quote]
I agree with you here like the rest of the board...
Actually, about 90% of jobs have conditions that make no difference for men and women.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129617:date=Feb 23 2006, 05:50 PM:name=Conor)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Feb 23 2006, 05:50 PM) [snapback]129617[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I don't think it would be fair to pay a woman the same as a man working on a construction site if the woman does less work.
[/quote]

Yes, but then, a woman unable to do the same work on a construction site as a man is unlikely to take the job in the first place- or to get it. Such jobs are given on qualification (physical strenght is a requirement for such a job), and most women don't qualify for them- but then, neither do most men (this is a thing we like to forget). On the other hand, we must not forget that there are women who are able to do the same work as a man in such a job.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129623:date=Feb 23 2006, 06:03 PM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Feb 23 2006, 06:03 PM) [snapback]129623[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Yes, but then, a woman unable to do the same work on a construction site as a man is unlikely to take the job in the first place- or to get it. Such jobs are given on qualification (physical strenght is a requirement for such a job), and most women don't qualify for them- but then, neither do most men (this is a thing we like to forget). On the other hand, we must not forget that there are women who are able to do the same work as a man in such a job.
[/quote]

Look, we all know that in the male-orientated world we live in, those in positions of authority feel the need to demonstrate the supposed 'inferiority' of the female gender. Many men feel insecure if a woman is in a better position than them (Oi, stop sniggering!), or higher up with regards to their authority or pay. Since our world is becoming increasingly female-dominated, many conservative males feel threatened and need some way to feed their egos-by earning more money. Essentially, even though women supposedly received equal rights to men nearly 100 years ago, the remnants of the male dominated civilisation are still here. That's my theory, but I'm thinking of other factors that could affect wages between genders-proportion of males to females? There's certainly more men in this world than women, if I remember my Geography rightly. And women live longer than men-perhaps that has something to do with pension differences? I'm not saying these are right, I'm just trying to come up with alterative explanations. Feel free to comment on these if you think they may be right, or if they are complete bullshit.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129618:date=Feb 23 2006, 06:03 PM:name=Maverick)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Feb 23 2006, 06:03 PM) [snapback]129618[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
But what about jobs were brain-power is required? Journalists, scientists, computer programmers, teachers, etc.
[/quote]
Journalists need to have a brain? Really? ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=130010:date=Feb 28 2006, 04:32 PM:name=JackKnife)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(JackKnife @ Feb 28 2006, 04:32 PM) [snapback]130010[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]Journalists need to have a brain? Really? ::[/quote]They have substantially more brain than fish, JackKnife...
 
[!--quoteo(post=130083:date=Mar 1 2006, 09:09 AM:name=SilentLucidity)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SilentLucidity @ Mar 1 2006, 09:09 AM) [snapback]130083[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
They have substantially more brain than fish, JackKnife...
[/quote]
I know that SilentLucidity, but I was talking about functional brain.... [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":D\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top