What kind of inequality are we talking about? Women have the same legal rights as men, so they are equal in that sense. You already agree that men and women are not equal, in that they are in general better and worse at some things. One cannot expect equality of results after an equal process between two parties which start with different qualities.
Women are earning, spending, and influencing spending at a greater rate than ever before -- and they account for $7 trillion in consumer and business spending in the United States, and over the next decade they will control two-thirds of consumer wealth. Women make or influence 85 percent of all purchasing decisions, and purchase over 50 percent of traditional male products, including automobiles, home improvement products and consumer electronics. But 91% of women say that advertisers don't understand them. Recognizing the power and influence of women must be a top priority for marketers if they are going to tap into the market's full potential. Here are 30 surprising stats to help marketers get a handle on this misunderstood demographic. Earning Power 1. The average American woman is expected to earn more than the average American male by 2028 2. Fifty-one percent of U.S. private wealth is controlled by women 3. Women account for over 50% of all stock ownership in the U.S. 4. Women control more than 60% of all personal wealth in the U.S. Spending Power 1. Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases, including everything from autos to health care 2. Women make 80% of healthcare decisions and 68 percent of new car purchase decisions 3. Seventy-five percent of women identified themselves as the primary shoppers for their households 4. Women influenced $90 billion of consumer electronic purchases in 2007 5. Nearly 50% of women say they want more green choices, with 37% are more likely to pay attention to brands that are committed to environmental causes Women and Cars 1. Women buy more than half of the new cars in the U.S., and influence up to 80% of all car purchases 2. Women request 65% of the service work done at dealerships 3. Women spend over $200 billion on new cars and mechanical servicing of vehicles each year 4. Forty-five percent of all light trucks and SUVs are purchased by women Mom Power 1. Moms represent a $2.4 trillion market 2. Fifty-five percent of active (daily) social media moms said they made their purchase because of a recommendation from a personal review blog 3. 18.3 million Internet users who are moms read blogs at least once a month 4. In 2014, 63% (nearly 21 million) of all online moms will read blogs 5. Moms mention brands an average of 73 times per week compared with just 57 times per week among males 6. Seventy-seven percent of mom bloggers will only write about products or brands whose reputations they approve of, and another 14% will write about brands or products they boycott 7. Ninety percent of moms are online vs. just 76% of women in general 8. Sixty-four percent of moms ask other mothers for advice before they purchase a new product and 63% of all mothers surveyed consider other moms the most credible experts when they have questions Women Online 1. As early as 2000, women were found to have surpassed men in Internet usage 2. Seventy-eight percent of women in the U.S. use the Internet for product information before making a purchase 3. Thirty-three percent research products and services online before buying offline 4. Women account for 58% of all total online spending 5. Twenty-two percent shop online at least once a day 6. Ninety-two percent pass along information about deals or finds to others 7. The average number of contacts in their e-mail or mobile lists is 171 8. Seventy-six percent want to be part of a special or select panel 9. Fifty-eight percent would toss a TV if they had to get rid of one digital device (only 11% would ditch their laptops) The sources for the statistics cited in this article are as follows: She-Economy, Ms Smith Marketing, StartUpNation, Clickz, Inc.com, Girl Power Marketing, Catalyst, Forbes. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/ar...-know.html
Actually I think the reason was because they were worried they would experience extensive social unrest otherwise
I am skeptical of modern feminism as most modern feminists want to be "more equal" then men. The modern feminist wants to be a firefighter, get paid the same, yet have a reduced workload. The women wants to be treated equally, yet it is the man who pays the child support and fights for custody of his child. The women want to be equal, yet it is the man loosing half his (*)(*)(*)(*) and paying alimony until god knows when. The women want to be treated equally, yet can yell and scream at their men, but if the men do the same in return, that is verbal abuse. The women want to be equal, but they can slap and hit their men, but if the man does it in return it is domestic violence. You want to be a firefighter? Cool. Can't drag me via SCBA tank by yourself? Guess what, you are not going to be entry or RIT. Can't handle a 1.5" hose on your own? Guess what, you are not going to be on a hose line. Such, and all tasks, should be performance based. Not an automatic equalizer to fill the position if not physically capable. I am all for equality, but focus on that word, equality. That is not being more equal or granted special privileges.
Women who want to be an engineer and get equal pay for work of equal value should suffer because over 80% of all engineers are men? More girls are going to university then guys and that 80% will eventually become 50%. Should they still make less then guys for the same work? What is a woman's "innate talents"? You're right: there is no patriarchal conspiracy. However, there is a group of people in power who tend to create laws that suit their own interests. Who would have guessed? See the post above that implies that women should earn less for doing "mens'" jobs? Still think that women have the same opportunities?
I seriously doubt you will find the male-female ratio of jobs will eventually drift down to 50/50. Such an assumption is based on the false assumption that men and women are the same, which they obviously are not. How can one ever expect two parts that are inherently different to get the same results if playing by the same rules? It's impossible, but it isn't a problem to begin with. Who's talking about women making less for the same work? That's a common misunderstanding, by reading some statistics and drawing the wrong conclusions. There are no laws mandating women get paid less (there is one mandating they be paid the same tho iirc) and studies have shown that men and women with the same qualifications do indeed get paid the same, with women being paid more in some cases. It really does depend on how you define 'opportunities'. If you mean that they play by the same rules as men, then yes, they have the same opportunities. But if you mean wheter or not they will somehow be compensated for the inherent biologically derived disadvantage they might have in some areas for being women, then no, they do not have the same opportunities, nor should they.
... so what is your assumption about why such a ratio, which I may be wrong but I think it's more than 4/1 (or more than 80% men), exists? From what I can see, it looks like you're assuming it exists solely because of sexism. I'd strongly encourage that you read "The Myth of Male Power," which goes to great lengths to break down our understandings of sexism in the workplace. Engineering as a field has most of the traits that women as a whole try to avoid, and lacks most of what they look for. They as a whole try to avoid long work, hard work, and dangerous, while preferring safe and secure jobs. It's why men dominate every dangerous field, and make up more than 19/20 lumberjacks, miners, firemen, etc., and why women make up more than 19/20 receptionists and secretaries, as well as dominate K-12.
No, not at all. I'm thinking the ratio is so primarily because of the different capabilities, advantages and disadvantages men and women have due to biology, and because of biology they are inclined to making different choices, though I acknowledge those choices are affected by culture. Sexism does of course exist, but I don't thinik it plays a very big part in comparison.
Presently a German woman sues Lufthansa, having failed the entry test for pilots for having a body height of 5 ft 3 inch, the minimum height for Lufthansa pilots being 5 ft 4 inch. In the justification of the court submission the woman writes that more women than men can be expected to be below that limit and therefore it is a case of gender discrimination. That is a deliberate misinterpretation of "discrimination". Not men, the society or Lufthansa, mother (!) nature is to blame for women being in average shorter than men. It would be discrimination if men below 5 ft 4 inch would be accepted as pilots by Lufthansa, women of equal height would be rejected. With the same kind of reasoning men could feel discriminated for not being permitted to become pregnant or having PMS. (At least the greatest part of men).
When all the factors are eliminated so that you actually are comparing comparable men and women in the same field, a pay gap is virtually non-existent. It's basically "within the margin of error", about a 2% difference. I think most of the gap doesn't have to do with biology, though that is a factor in certain fields (like forestry). Usually it seems much more a matter of choices. Men go into fields for the money far more often than women do, and women go into fields for the safety, security, or joy of it far more often than men do. There's a reason why fields like physics and engineering are dominated by men while teaching and the humanities are dominated by women, and it's individual choice.
The supposed 'pay gap', which I believe is based on drawing misleading conclusion from the fact that mens' and women's average per capita wages differ, is a different matter than wheter men and women are payed the same for the same job. I was explaining why I think the ratios are as they are, but as wheter men and women get payed the same for the same work is another issues, in which I agree with you that it's pretty much the same, within a negliable 2% difference.
... are you getting dejavu? I somehow am feeling like we've had this conversation before with nearly the same exchange, haha
Feminists must be graded on their use of their bodies over the 50 years since Roe VS Wade. Feminists have consistently, every year, required the same 1.2 million ANNUAL abortions and the accompaniment of another 1.5 million bastards fatherless children every year which represent the criminal element in America. This is a very poor record for the Right to her body arguments, as if women, without their bodies, are part somehow still part of the Social Contract between us all.
