...

That's interesting you bring that up. Now, I'm an economist, so I come from a different perspective than most, so don't be offended by what I say next, as its the speak of someone who spends far too much time in databases and statistical models.

Theoretically, there is likely to always be a difference in men's and women's salaries (at least in the current cultural paradigm). This explainable difference arises because only women bear the burden of birthing a child (in the physical sense). This has meant, historically, that women were more likely to be absent from the workplace / workforce at some time. When absent, they are not gaining new skills, or keeping their old skills sharp (this is called a hysterisis effect). That depresses their wages upon re-entry.

Over the last say, 50 years, the wage gap between men and women has declining. Part of this decline is due to women entering fields previously populated by men only, or (perhaps similiarly) into higher paying roles. However, another part of the gap convergence is because of better natal medical care, returning a mother to the work force faster. Telecommuting (as it becomes more normal) will likely continue to decrease this gap. Further convergence is due to cultural (or legal) changes, such as the families and medical leave act.

Yes, a good amount of the gap was due to discrimination (thats the gap we don't like). My point is to explain the non-discriminatory factors and how they are also partly responsible for a wage gap.

As an aside, one of my many jobs in Civil Rights is on this very issue (wage discrimination). What I've presented here is an early in the morning summary of the historical literature before I had coffee

"Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own." ~~ Bruce Lee


I've never noticed a male nor female chauvinist bent to PF blogs because I don't really care. I find the information I want or need, ignore what is not useful to me, and apply it to my own life in my own way. I feel my time is best spent trying to improve who I am rather than fretting over whether others would give me my proper due. At the end of the day I have to answer to myself, and I'm a far harsher taskmaster than anyone else could ever be to me.

Nothing you said is even in the realm of offensive. I think it is considerate of you to walk on eggshells, but it isn't necessary.

That said, I do think that the wage gap is decreasing because women are entering into fields traditionally populated by men-only. However, cases like the recent Goodyear scandal exposes the problem that women often don't know that they are subjected to gender discrimination (through depressed wages). These stories, and comments like the ex-Harvard President proclaiming women are not as smart as men in the fields of math and science, are what sticks in my craw. I believe we still have a long way to go before we are past all discrimination in the work place.

I agree 100%, Bronk. I don't think financial advisers, insurance salesmen (oops, sorry, "salespeople"), or MLM recruiters are cutting me a break because I'm male. I'm pretty sure they're all already trying to rip me off for as much as they can, regardless of my gender.

This thread is a powder keg waiting for a match. I'm going to slowly back away before this gets out of hand.

As one of my grad school professors explained to us in class one day, science does not advance because scientists learn new things and change their minds. Science advances because younger scientists enter the field without the preconceived notions of the old guard, and the old guard eventually dies off.

I remember reading a book by Charles Townes -- the man who received a Nobel for his work on creating the laser -- where he recounted and experience with Neils Bohr, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century. Townes was excitedly telling the older Bohr about his theory behind the laser. But Bohr, set in his ways by that point, said it would never work. It took young guns to blaze a path forward. In fact, most Nobels in physics have been awarded for work done by young scientists. They say that most physicists have done their most groundbreaking work by the time they're 30, and that's not an inaccurate generalization.

Likewise, the good ol' boy network still exists in our society. But it's slowly changing as younger people, people who have not grown up with biases toward life revolving a SAHM and a dad who works, are beginning to take the reins of business from the old guard. I'm sure it will continue to change. My kids are growing up in a different world than the one in which I grew up. They understand that there are differences between men and women, but they also understand that the limitations believed by previous generations to exist, really aren't there at all. By the time they reach my age, my daughter will have more opportunities than my wife does.

...

Okay, you're just looking for completely neutral types of sites. I understand and agree with that. However, for better or worse, 'feminist' has some other connotations that don't always fall in-line with what I think you're going for. I mean that in the sense that there's the gender neutral, fair wages, keep out the caveman talk type of thing and then there's the all men are slugs, women are all oppressed, free Tibet type of feminism (and I'm sure all sorts of shades in between). I empathize with the former, I think the latter perpetuates the problem.

As for the prototypical examples used alot of the man being the breadwinner, the woman the SAHM. I think that paradigm is in use alot, because that's the typical situation (well, it's my situation at least, although she spent 14 years in the USN driving boats before we had a child). I suppose I default into that line of thought when considering the macro level and my writing reflects that, as I'd guess is the case for most others. I see many other situations online, and as the Bruce Lee lesson teaches I simply try and pull the relevant parts out for myself. Anyway, I am curious now, so I'll keep a weather eye out for the type of thing you're referring to.

Interesting thread this, combining feminism, Bruce Lee and personal finance in a way that makes sense.

cheers,
Zulu

...

I don't think "lack of bias" implies neutral in the context of LittleMissNoName's post, but rather it implies that woman and men are treated as equally respected but still distinct. I can imagine an unbiased perspective that tackles financial issues specific to woman like the impact of pregnancy on work, the cost of makeup or other woman specific hygiene issues that men don't have to deal with yet without treating men indignantly. This is a sort of "bias" but it does not imply favoritism.



Interesting that you mention that, because my family has a unique situation. When you consider my "generation" in the family to myself, my siblings and all my first cousins we have a majority of DINKs(Double Income No Kids) but those with kids ALL the woman are the breadwinners and the men are stay at home dads. Certainly unique, but a real testament to the changes we're seeing in closing the gender gap.

The danger in making assumptions of either case is in the inductive reasoning people tend to use in situations where they have an emotional attachment. One person's experiences may lead to one conclusion, while another person's experiences may lead to another. And each may feel entirely justified in their respective conclusions because of those experiences and still not accurately know the overall picture. In essence, not everyone shares the same reality.

At this point in our society, I honestly have no idea how many SAHMs, SAHDs, or DINKs there are. And I think it would be difficult to find an unbiased source, especially with topics that are agenda driven (not saying you are, but this can be a hot topic of contention for many people).

I don't know if they exist or not. All I'm getting at is that, for better or worse, that is one of the connotations associated with feminism.



Well, my cul-de-sac has six families living on it. Of those, three are like I described and three have both parents working. Granted it's a tiny sample, but it's enough for me to think that my 'extremely out-of-touch and limiting' view has some merit. I'm sure there are many neighbourhoods like you describe, and I'm sure there are many like mine. I'll simply acknowledge that instead of biting back.

My point was not that the breadwinner/SAHM is even the most common arrangement. My point was that it is my arrangement, and likely many others, and that's why it's more likely to be used as an example by those of us in that situation.

I think kombat was right about this topic, and I too will simply withdraw.

regards,
Zulu

But it is.



The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Darn it, I told myself I was gonna stay out of this thread.

...

LittleMiss, the statistic you cited ignores an incredible number of other variables, such as the fact that the number of single-parent families, childless couples, and dual-earning families have all exploded since the 40's.

I found my own study which reinforces my assertion that men are still, by far, the usual breadwinner:

"In 1967, the wife was the earning spouse in just 2% of single earner couples; by 1993, the proportion had risen to 20%."

Don't get me wrong, that's still impressive. But the bottom line is that if women are the earning spouse in 20% of single-earner couples, then men are the earning spouse in the other 80%.

Thus, the stereotype has merit. That's all I was trying to say. When one parent chooses to leave the workforce and raise a child, 4 out of 5 times, it's the woman.