White House's "Women in America" study: Gender equality hasn't improved much
By Libby RumeltMarch 2nd, 2011, 4:00 pmComments (8)
The latest news in lady news is that... there is no news. And that's not a good thing. Yesterday afternoon, the White House released their study "Women in America." Women currently achieve higher in all levels of academia than men, and by 2019 women are expected to make up sixty percent of all undergraduates. Yet, they're still making only seventy-five percent of what their male counterparts do.
The rest of the nearly hundred-page report offers up information on not only education and employment, but health, income, crime and violence, and family. While it probably won't shock anyone that women are getting married later in life and giving birth later in life — if they're having children at all — the crime and violence, as well as the health section of the study, have vaguely more interesting facts to report. Apparently, violent crimes against women have declined since the early 1990s. In terms of health, women are forty percent more likely to have trouble walking in their old age; perhaps this is because over one third of women over the age of twenty are obese.
All in all, even the White House officials who conducted this study admit there's nothing game-changing to report. Which is disappointing in and of itself, since the last time this study was conducted was in 1963.
Commentarium (8 Comments)
Sorry, the $0.75 to $1 ratio isn't something you can just use in that form. It's based on a total average vs. a total average. With more men than women as CEOs and other high ranking positions, it just throws off the curve... it's that simple.
No one was bothered to do a 1:1 study of women and men in the same position, same experience, education, etc. etc. because it would be next to impossible to gather the data.
So please, safe me the women get paid less than men routine... because being inaccurate, it's been illegal for far too many years.
and why are more men CEOs and in high ranking positions?
Because the vast majority of CEOs are older, and got most of their experience in an era when women worked less and took more time off to have and raise children.
Could it be because women "choose" jobs that do not pay as much?
Could it be that women proactively choose a job where they can balance life as a mother and as a productive employee?
And why is it a problem that women earn 75% of men yet its not a problem that women make up 60% of college undergrads? So inequality for women = bad but inequality for men = good?
Hello Gents.
Why so angry? I will 'safe' you (so sad the lack of male education - I jest) the trouble of wondering more. Women 'choose' jobs that do not pay as much? Let's look at what work women were allowed to do vs. 'men's' work, yes? School Teacher, Nurse, Flight Attendant (aka Stewardess). I love how any time women's issues are discussed, the response is always, oh yeah? But what about MEN?? What about us? Why aren't you talking about us? The statistic about women who make up 60% of college undergrads (which btw is closer to the actual break down by population of men to women since more girl babies are born, and generally women out live men) is merely to show that it is not a lack of educational opportunities that prevent women from high paying jobs. Men, thank you for playing, but when the world is skewed to your eyes, it's very difficult to see the world in a different way, I understand, I encourage you to open yourself and explore your ability to empathize. Do you know who Alice Paul is? The 200+ years of women sacrificing and dying just to get the vote? The ERA never passed. Could it be that bosses proactively don't choose women employees because they fear women will want to have a life work balance as a parent? Isn't that a depressing thing to be foisted with as a man, that you don't care about having a life work balance as a parent? I do believe the 1:1 ratio studies that you have asked for have taken place and there is not much improvement. Women tend to not negotiate up a salary offer, and will take any job vs. holding out for what they 'deserve' as the entitled sex does. Women are taught to suck it up and not rock the boat and not be aggressive and not ask for what they want directly. To be 'nice' and 'cooperative'. I don't know how many meetings I have been in where a woman proposes a sound idea that is shot down, only to be parroted later as a man's idea and, in it's new voice, is championed. It's a frustrating and common phenomenon. Any way, before you bitch about today, just read one or two biographies or even a time line of the history of the civil rights fight for women. Because women have accepted that they are the lessor sex, the weaker sex, that there is a role and a place and a sphere that gives them identity, parsing out gender difference from ideas of equality is a lot more complicated than many of the other isms. Know your history, and then I would love to hear your thoughts.
My first thought is chop up that text wall and maybe somebody will listen.
Sabby,
You reply to my post and attack the previous poster's spelling which is an ad hominem attack.
I could engage in the same by going tit-for-tat and pointing out that you say women are the "lessor sex" (a lessor is someone who rents property).
But I digress. By your history argument, why don't you look back at the 200+ years of history and look around you and see that your existence depends on the creativity and labor of men. When women start taking equal responsibility and not just equal rights then maybe men today will not be so angry when they see blatant inequality against them.
200 years ago feminism managed to appeal to the consciences of good men to recognize inequality. Fast forward to today and feminists cannot even comprehend when there is inequality towards men, and if they do see it, they ignore it or justify it.
Perhaps when women make up the bulk of war dead, perhaps when teams of women build cities and skyscrapers, perhaps when women who 'claim' to want equality actually acknowledge male concerns, then maybe there will be less angry men.
Without the cooperation of men, women and women's rights will crumble. Keep alienating the men at your peril.
With such a huge defensive line, is anyone surprised?
Now you say something