Well, there is that whole "lack of financial independence" thing.

Good god you are an idiot. Let's see....YOU have pointed out that women...though a low % of corporate executives...still make it to the top and become CEO's. I have pointed out that women make up almost 50% of B-School these days. We openly acknowledge that there are no laws or legal structures in place to stop women from getting jobs.

My wife works and gets promotions...

Let see...so unless Noble White Male Liberal helps them, poor, stupid women can't succeed?

God you are a sexist, bigoted asshole.

Uhhhh ohhhh... It seems WOMEN are fa1ring BETTER THAN MEN in the recovery….

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/stronger-jobs-recovery-reaching-women

also really feminism isn't an apt name, lots of feminist stuff could be used for men too - it's just the idea that you are treated of an individual and that your sex is ignored, and recognition that gender is a social construct

Obviously. A lot of male employment was in industries propped up by the housing bubble. Those jobs aren't coming back.

krellin, the fact a vanishingly small number of women have made it to the highest echelons of society is not evidence that there are no barriers facing women -- it is evidence that there are in fact substantial barriers, which some have been able to surmount.

And obviously it is a welcome development that more women are entering business school and STEM fields. This is a sign that some social norms, which previously pushed women away from these fields and resulted in their entry being dismissed by the gender police who knew it wasn't woman's role to work amongst men, are receding.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear, a recent Supreme Court case, is a good example of institutionalized legal frameworks that entrench gender discrimination in the United States. SCOTUS ruled that you couldn't sue for discrimination that resulted in disparate pay if you wait too long, even if the knowledge that you were receiving disparate pay as a result of discrimination is kept secret from you by your employer (making it impossible to make a claim of discrimination during the timeframe permitted by the law). It is extremely difficult to successfully pursue a legal case of discrimination against an employer in the USA because the burden on plaintiffs is almost impossibly high. So discriminating by paying women less is extremely easy to get away with, and still quite rampant.

And even then, barriers to pursue the choices you want to make exist outside of laws and legal frameworks. But you seem unable to comprehend that.

And where the fuck are you getting this bullshit about white liberal males being needed to help women that you keep on trotting out? I've talked to some obtuse assholes before, but no one that kept on flagellating a mythical straw man so flagrantly.

I was tempted to stop after this first phrase
"I wrote an article for Fox News" ....... however I persisted

I think it is fair to say Venker is a legend in her own lunch-time, a thinking womans sanitary towel ..... another potential candidate for the Tea-Party Woman of the Year Award.

I hate to say this guys, but I've made most of these points ages ago... and none of them got through the thick head of the people you're debating with.

I'll say it again: what a blessing not having to contend with their idiocy! I do very much commend the mod (Kestas?) who invented the mute button.

Stackle, if a woman overcomes a barrier, then it is no longer a barrier. It is a barrier to SOME women, but not to all, but that also applies to men.

For some men, there are barriers some men can overcome, others cant. We are not all the same,

No matter how bad I wanted to play MLB baseball, i could not overcome the physical barrier in place. Should I complain about it? There are no women in baseball, is there a barrrier there for them? yes, their is a physical barrier they simply can not get over, but neither can 99.999% of men. Nothing wrong with that. The ones playing the game are the best at it, so they get the jobs.

Now, I am only playing Devils advocate with you, but physical barriers can apply to other jobs as well, where the physical strengthof a person is 100% the determining factor if a person can get a job. I have seen ads "must be able to lift 75 pounds often" Most women would struggle with that, but I know some can do it, but this would certainly allow for a much smaller % of women to apply for such a job.

Stacakble - if you knew how to read, you would read that I admit there is sexism, bigotry, racism is the workplace, but it is NOT a legal structure. ALL THE LEGAL STRUCTURES IN SOCIETY ARE GEARED TOWARDS EQUAL ACCESS UNDER PENATLY OF LAW.

Therefore, if there are fewer women at the top, it is because:
A "the old guard" won't hire them....and there is nothing you can do about that except:
.....1. Wait for them to die...social change *takes time*...which is just REALITY
.....2. Fire everyone with a cock and hire women....which would be illegal
B Not as many women BY PERSONAL CHOICE have put themselves in a career position to be a CEO.

What I have not seen you do ONCE is offer a suggestion as to how you will make 50% of the CEO positions be held by women.

You throw out statistics and say the world is wrong, your quotas are not met...but you offer no soution other than a group hug and some sort of social brainwashing that requires women to think and compete as men do.

Again...you are a sexist and a bigot and you don't actually live in reality.

@Cach....and then there is fucktard cach, who pretends to mute people but continues to read everything being written while he sits in a corner with his pretty pretty makeup on and strokes himself off to his own reflection...

Here are some simple policy suggestions:

-Mandated parental leave (for mothers and fathers, or in the case of same-sex couples, just both parents), so that both parents at least have the option of equally sharing the burden of wanting both a family and a career

-The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed in 2009 and changed the statute of limitations on equal-pay lawsuits from 180 days after employment commences to 180 days after the last paycheck. I'd go even further than this and increase the statute of limitations to far more than 180 days, so that employers are more likely to face consequences for employment.

-Treat women's reproductive healthcare equally with men's reproductive healthcare. It is ridiculous that insurance programs in the USA cover ED medication but not contraceptives, for example. I think fewer unwanted/unplanned pregnancies and less cervical cancer are goals everyone can get behind.

-Diversify the literature children read in pre-k and grade school, so that they don't spend all day everyday learning about *only* beautiful princesses being rescued by dashing princes. They learn some pretty harmful messages about the role of men and women by being exposed to so much patriarchal literature, and internalizing the "damsel-in-distress" trope.

-Subsidies for daycare. Many women (and men) would *like* to work, but often times childcare is more expensive than the foregone income of the second income earner. This leads to people taking more time off work than they want to, which (obviously) puts stress on their family since they're unhappy about what they want to do, but also creates a pretty big collective problem. This is a financial barrier that pushes people, often women but perhaps men in a future with more female breadwinners, out of the workforce.

I could go on, but I'll diversify myself.

Some simple business practices I'd also suggest, but obviously can't be mandated by law:

-Look at resumes blind, without the name, the first time. Minorities and women do a lot better when this practice is followed, at least for now, and do worse than their candidate quality would suggest when it is not. Unconscious discrimination is probably the reason for this

-Don't do phone interviews - in-person, or video-conference. Minorities and women, again, do much worse than their candidate quality suggests on phone interviews. Research suggests this has something to do with how interviewers perceive different voices.

-Don't have a formal corporate dress code; these are usually sexist and used to shame women or trump up reasons for firing them. (Dress codes in schools are also bad for this reason.)

I could go on... but anyway, krellin, feel free to give these a whirl.

Cach is actually veryu upset because, as a not-quite-straight androgynous wishes-he-was-prettier kind of guy, he wants to wear a skirt and be a street-corner prostitute, but this choosen profession just has no room for him.

Those damned social barriers...keeping pretty pretty metrosexuals from peddling their own flesh as every good woman can if she chooses.

Should read: "The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed in 2009 and changed the statute of limitations on equal-pay lawsuits from 180 days after employment commences to 180 days after the last paycheck. I'd go even further than this and increase the statute of limitations to far more than 180 days, so that employers are more likely to face consequences for pay discrimination. "

Stackable -- how about this...I don't NEED to do blind interviews, etc, because I look at the SKILLS and EXPERIENCE on the resumes of people that I interview. I could give a fuck if you are from mard, have three eys and can mate with yourself...if you can engiener what I need engineered, I'll hire you.

It's only the Noble White Male Liberal that seems to first examine names to try to determine gender, race and origin.

I typically skip right to skills, experience and education. But hell...I guess I'm just a stupid, insensitive jackass, not catring about all those pesky identity labels Liberals are so hyped up about...

Should we be mourning the fact that women have been "shut out" of such difficult, dangerous, and low-paying male-dominated jobs like 'coal miner', 'trash collector', or 'deep sea fisherman'? If the patriarchist oppressors who run the world really want all the good things in life to go to their co-genderist oppressors, wouldn't jobs such as these be done entirely by women, instead of entirely by men?

krellin, maybe you are, but everyone isn't - and research has shown this makes a difference. Are you saying we should just ignore research that says this makes a difference?

@Tolstoy, obviously patriarchal structures are also harmful to many men, especially men outside the white collar paradigm. Dangerous and/or menial blue collar jobs are largely pursued and done by men for much the same reason the menial pink collar jobs are largely pursued and done by women: we've all internalized false notions about what "being a man" and "being a woman" is about; I would say it is an injustice that environments hostile to the presence of women keeps those who would enjoy that work out of blue collar jobs, just as the same is true for men who want to work pink collar jobs. A world with a more level playing field *would* see more male daycare workers and more female electricians.

More female construction workers! Equal work for equal pay! (That last also applies to smoking addicts who take 10-15% of their work day in the fucking smoking pit!)

In the free market, there are economic incentives to pay people fair wages. If you pay your employees too much, you lose money. If you pay your employees too little, you no longer have employees. Sexism will eventually go away in the private sector(and largely already has).

Saith Cach if he were reading: "More sexy toothless male hookers!!". (He's busy with his new makeup kit...)

Ding ding for Jowr. This is why I hire TALENT, not gender or flesh color. That"s why all corps hire talent - to make cash. If they forego talent because of gender or race issues, they will suffer economically, and eventually fail to the competition .

@Jowr, as an economist by training, posts like yours are why I wish people would stop taking Economics 101 and learning oversimplified, and mostly false, content from their professors.

Contrary to what your Economics 101 professor told you, workers are not paid what they are worth (their marginal product, in economics parlance). Their wage depends on what they produce, and the balance of bargaining power between them and their employer.

Their bargaining power is mainly determined by their "outside option" - how much they can expect to be paid from another employer, or in a lot of cases, how much someone else is *actually* offering them.

If some, perhaps many, perhaps few, employers discriminate against women, then women have less bargaining power and get paid less, even by employers that don't discriminate. Their ability to present and argue for compelling "outside options" - that whole conversation where you go to your manager and say, "a woman my age at this point in my career can earn xx at a normal firm in my field" - is greatly diminished.

And there is no market force that makes that go away. As long as some employers irrationally discriminate, women will always have less bargaining power, and will always be paid less, even by firms that don't discriminate, but just bargain normally with their employees over compensation.

"a woman my age at this point in my career can earn xx at a normal firm in my field"

Who the fuck ever has that conversation? No professional male or female, that I know has a conversation about a person (whatever gender) their age in their field making X. No, we go out and get an offer for another job then take that offer and say "You want me to stay? Match it plus 5%." or something similar. That or we just give notice and take the new job and don't offer them the opportunity to counter.

Stackelberg, when you try and give some people a legal advantage over others, you render that group of people uncompetitive. If you give women an advantage in the workplace, the quality of female workers will decrease, and nothing will have changed. In the same way, when corn is subsidized, it is used in places where it does not deserve to be used, and the market is degraded.
If daycare is subsidized, then some people who do not want to send their kids to daycare, will be economically forced to. It is no longer left up to the consumer.
When interest rates are subsidized, a credit bubble is created, and the economy collapses.
SUBSIDIES NEVER ACHIEVE THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE, and that is very important to understand.

Stacklberg, in a market where employers discriminate against women, the first person to NOT discriminate against women is able to hire all of the high-skilled women in that particular industry. As an economist, you may appreciate the story of Paul Samuelson; how MIT was able to create the world's greatest economics program, at a comparatively low cost, by NOT discriminating against Jews.
Also, the availability of labor in a specific field is factor in the value of labor. Of course, someone's "outside option" is directly correlated to how much their labor is worth. That is why the value of unskilled labor is low; because more of it can always be found.
Any wage which is agreed on by both parties(indeed, any business transaction) can, by any reasonable definition, be deemed a "fair wage."

"Also, the availability of labor in a specific field is factor in the value of labor. Of course, someone's "outside option" is directly correlated to how much their labor is worth. That is why the value of unskilled labor is low; because more of it can always be found.
Any wage which is agreed on by both parties(indeed, any business transaction) can, by any reasonable definition, be deemed a "fair wage." "

QFT!

@Draugnar, I was in a hurry when I wrote that. Of course you wouldn't bring up your gender. But your ability to solicit an offer when want to negotiate will be weaker if you are facing discrimination.

@Jowry, yes, of course, non-discriminatory employers get an edge. But the difference between Jews and women is that there are way more women - enough discrimination means that is much harder to find and hire all of those productive workers that are facing discrimination.

And the case for daycare goes beyond supporting the labour force participation of parents. There are positive externalities like mad - more investment in human capital, stronger "learning by doing" spillovers, and all in all, a more productive workforce. You raise a valid point about the incentives of the subsidy, but that's workable from a program design perspective

@Stack - regardless of the gender part, no one I know (and I've been a white collar professional for over 25 years) goes in and says "you don't pay me enough". They go get another offer first and either present it for a counter or just give notice. Your proposed scenario just doesn't happen.

I said "you don't pay me enough" to my manager the other day. He gave me a raise. I'm up to a whopping $7.75 an hour now. Yay.

Not sure what to say, Draugnar, but it happens around these parts. I've known a number of people to have advocated that they deserve a salary bump, based on their tenure and performance. Maybe it's just more common in financial services and government.