"Hate" Hmm. Despite the way you paint this - I'm not clear that you've made the case that that this is unfair. I think what you've said is that people - of either gender - that take significant time off from work or who work less hours receive less compensation - that sounds pretty equal.

To be clear: If a woman or a man is paid significantly less than his or her counter-part doing precisely the same job (meaning same hours, same performance, same responsibilities) - then that's grossly unfair. Similarly, women must physically have the children - so there should be no "ding" against a woman's career or earnings for having a child or taking maternity leave.

But that's not what you said. You said taking a year off kills your job prospects. That seems self-evident and not particularly unfair. If a man or woman decides to take that much time off - either for family or otherwise - or decides to have their primary focus be family, that's great. But it's a choice - Agree it's a choice society may pressure women to make and men not to make - but a choice nonetheless.

The question should be one of opportunity and choice to allow folks to choose they want to live their lives. . . and to suggest that people, male or female, somehow ought to be protected from economic downside when they've proactively decided to work less seems like a big stretch.

It's not unfair that taking a year off to have a child should kill your job prospects?

And you wonder why I said that our society (read you) hate mothers. A person lives eighty years, but if god forbid they spend one of those years nursing a child, they should pay for it with permanently lower wages for any years they work in the future?

BTW last I checked, men can't nurse, so the pressure on women to take time off is more than societal.

Basically, the study says that our society demands that people choose between career and family, and those who decide to give some minimal attention to the latter suffer a significant loss in the former.

Nathan argues that this FACT shows how empty the talk about family values is in our country. What's problematical about that?

Huh's argument, on the other hand seems to be . . . what? It's a dog-eat-dog world? I guess I would be more receptive to that argument if we could see incompetents like George Bush having to operate under the same rule.

But, of course, Bush doesn't. And, as cover for his and his ilk's great good fortune, we get arguments that boil down to: "Have kids if you like, but know this: Instead of the dime's worth of help you might expect from the best-off in our society for doing a decent job of raising your kids, you'll get no thanks and a hefty penalty in wages or salary."

Oh the melodrama.

My point was that when people have kids (I have several) - that is a huge time commitment. If you are going to raise them and be involved with them, it's highly time consuming. Neither I nor my wife (who will no doubt be amused to know that apparently I hate her) have any illusions that having a family does not impact our economic situation - including earning potential.

There are people who work harder than me. When I'm leaving to spend time with my family, they are here working. They *deserve* I think to earn more than I. Similarly, those folks who leave even more often than I *deserve* to earn less. What's so shocking about that? That more women choose this path - so long as the opportunity is equal where is the beef?

Tree points out though that we do not live in a meritocracy. Fair enough and agreed that that is a bad thing and if women are discriminated against as a result of their gender - also a clear negative. However trying to get to effort/merit in = reward out is what I'm arguing for in the first instance. . .

But why should it be a choice? If you work one less year, that should be treated as having one less year of experience, nothing more. Which sure shouldn't warrant the 32% plunge in earnings.

The reality is that employers severely discriminate against mothers. Anyone should be appalled by that fact. You may be fine with the tradeoff, but many families can't afford the hit to the family finances from that financial punishment.

As for bottles, sure they can be used. That's why it's "pressure" to stay home, rather than a requirement. But a lot of folks believe in breastfeeding, which does create pressure.

"Outright discrimination against women probably accounts for only about 10 percentage points of the pay gap, according to numerous studies. The bulk of the problem, then, lies with the conflicting needs and norms of society and employers. A majority of men and women still work in largely sex-segregated occupations, Rose and Hartmann's study shows, leaving many women stuck in lower-paying jobs such as cashiers and maids."

I would say a lot of the 10% is due to somewhat the fact that certain jobs are of a fiscal nature. Men aren't working construction jobs and women as maids for just any old reason. Granted, the maid may work as hard as the man, but a man could do a maid's job. Some women just couldn't or wouldn't want to work 5 floors up on a building. I wouldn't.

In the occupations that I have been in(CPA and software engineer), I think the women who work fulltime and haven't taken off make as much as I do. My sister works in a different occupation, took 1 1/2 months off(versus a whole year), and makes more money than I do.

There may be a small difference but it isn't a major difference.

"But why should it be a choice? If you work one less year, that should be treated as having one less year of experience, nothing more. Which sure shouldn't warrant the 32% plunge in earnings."

Why should it be a choice? What else would you have? a mandate?

Does 32% seem like a lot viscerally? Sure. But I have no basis to conclude whether this is "fair" or rather a rational market reaction given that after a year, I do think you lose skills and probably have to start from scratch in most jobs. I'm not convinced recitation of 32% alone proves that there is discrimination - at least not to the magnitude you suggest. Certainly there is a loss a person takes for exiting and the re-entering the work force. It takes a lot of time to build back up again.

Over a career, I assume that my wages will increase from the time I start working - if so, then my taking a year off, in reality cuts a year off the back - my most economically productive year - reduces every year in between when I would have been getting increases.

I took time off - sure I could have made a lot more if I didn't - but that does not mean I've been discriminated against. Accordingly, although I have only ancedotal evidence like Chad's - I echo his thought. There is no doubt discrimination exists out there - but I question whether at least along this fault line it's as severe as you suggest.

In a nutshell, our society is not very supportive of people who have children or want to have a life outside of their work. In our soceity we *are* what we do, we are defined by it, we are supposed to have a slavish devotion to it, in a lot of jobs people fear that they'll be penalized if they take their pathetic 2 weeks of vacation. Frankly, to me, this is the heart of the problem. We're supposed to be workers and things like being being a mother or father distract workers from being slaves to their jobs. We're not expected, culturally, to be well-rounded people or to have much down-time.

However, as for the gender wage gap, this report clearly shows that it is mothers more than fathers who get the short end of the stick.

Whether some of the folks around here can see it or not, sexism in the workplace persists and women pay the price for it. Stereotypes that place limits on the expectations of one gender and their ability/interest in certain employment fields are sexist, for either sex. You can give a few anecodotal examples of women who make more than you, but that doesn't make the facts any less true. Frankly, women who take maid jobs often do so because they don't have options. It's not as though they're given a choice between a high-paying, skilled job and the job of a maid and they choose maid. Jeebus.

I'm married to a woman in a totally male-dominated field. There isn't a day that goes by that she's not reminded that's she's a *woman*. Frankly, if you ask any woman in a traditionally male career field she'll tell you that she has to work twice as hard to prove that she's equal to the men. If that's not sexism, I don't know what is.

Zoe expands to an encompassing critique of our societial work ethic. Inasmuch as "some people" probably refers to me - I would respond that most sane people aspire to work less. . .Should we as a society work less? Maybe - we should probably also want less. . .

Your anecdote based critique of my using an anecdote notwithstanding - I don't discount the difficulty of your wife's and others swimming against the societal tide. That door swings both ways - Stay home dads face the same thing.

My point is a much more narrow one - Per the summary - "Rose and Hartmann's data show that women can get equal treatment today -- but mostly when they behave like traditional men and leave the primary family responsibilities at home." If this is true, where's the inequality in that?

Look. . .All else being equal people of each gender should be paid equally for equal work. To the extent that the study says that - I'm in complete agreement.

But if you and I work side by side on a job as equals - and the job has to have coverage at 8:00 PM on most nights and on holidays. . . and you have to cover those bad and longer hours every time because I have/want to be home with my family, play bridge or just plain don't want to work at those inconvenient times. . .Then regardless of your gender you're adding more value - a lot more than is reflected in the mere quantity of hours - and you should get paid more - a LOT more - and there's simply nothing unfair about it.

Well, Huh, you would be shocked at how many women carry pagers and put in those hours. It would be just fascinating if they *did* get paid for it consistently.

Unfortunately, we have no Constitutional amendment that would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of innie or outie genitals, and the bottom-liners consider female underpayment to be decreed by God and their right as businessbeings.

Perhaps not. The study says, women are much more likely to be the ones taking the lead on the family. The study says that women generally work less hours.

Assuming the study is correct - then what would be the basis NOT to conclude that men are taking the lead on the unfavorable work or that the person who is working at 9 PM is more likely to be a man?

Now I've no beef with the ERA - I'm supportive of a Constitutional Amendment. But last I read it, it said equal. Equal should mean EQUAL. No more, no less.

Our society hates fathers too, since men are approximately ten times more likely to die in job related accidents than women are. The death rate for men on the job is 7.7 per 100,000 (0.8 per 100,000 for women) according to OSHA. Ten times as many people die in job related accidents as die from domestic violence. Men are also far, far more likely to be injured on the job. The total cost of such nonfatal occupational injuries to injured parties is almost $63 billion dollars per year, again according to OSHA.

Is it at all possible that the difference in wages between men and women can be partially explained by the fact that men put their lives on the line at vastly higher rates than women do? If you show me statistics saying that women in the exact same job with the same amount of experience, working the same number of hours and producing the same profit for the company are being paid different amounts, I would find that appalling. However, you haven't proved that. All you've proven is that the numbers on paper are different. Men, as a group, take more risks than women in their jobs. They climb tall buildings and go hundreds of feet underground and play with live electrical wires. I'll be more sympathetic to claims of discrimination when we women stop letting men do all the really dangerous work.

Amy- Let's see -- "They climb tall buildings and go hundreds of feet underground and play with live electrical wires."

If I was you, I would not pick construction jobs, an industry with incredibly high documentated rates of sexism in order to exclude women from those high wage jobs, as an example to prove your point. In fact, that history of excluding women from high-paying male-dominanted sectors and pushing them into lower-paying "pink collar" style jobs is exactly the problem highlighted by these kinds of career studies.

Sure, if a woman can GET a job in a traditionally male-dominated sector, she usually gets somewhat similar pay (although still only 90 cents on the dollar by many statistics). But that's like saying that black people allowed to get leads in Shakespearean productions get equal pay. It's true, but somehow they keep picking white folks for the job in all but a few unusual cases.

I think the construction example is the crux of the issue. On what basis does the study define jobs solely by educational qualifiction, ignoring other seemingly relevant factors - such as physical attributes, experience, or willingness to encounter risk.

Those factors bear on qualification and scarcity which larely define compensation. That is to say, I think the person working 5 stories up gets paid a lot because it's dangerous - not because the person tends to be a man. As Chad said - "I wouldn't want to do it." Me either. But someone has to. . .

I'm for equal opportunity. I'm with you that if women (or men) are shut out/treated poorly/paid less for equal work then that is a travesty.

But the original beef was that society hates and discriminates against mothers.

Will you really be heard to say that you believe there to be a significant supply of under-employed women - especially mothers with kids at home - who very much want to get into high physical risk/high reward jobs . . . but are being turned away?

Since both spouses usually have to work to
support a family nowadays, a single mother
is doubly screwed; she suffers from maternal
stigma AND declining wages. Add to this the
difficulties of finding daycare and pursuing
higher education (to improve her earning
potential) and what you have developed is a
pattern of abuse and victimization that makes
an ACTUAL abusive relationship seem almost
attractive. As a hard working, high-risk
employed man, I say fund it to death, tax me all
you want! Put every woman in school on
my dime, if that will prevent their bastard
kids from robbing and killing me twenty years
from now!

Hi Nathan,
Now this will really rile you up. But my husband and I have kept track for years of our dealings with male or female workers.
We have found that the females like to spout rules but do not come up with creative solutions in general.
When we call a help desk and get a woman on the line, our problem is more often not solved. If we call and get a man it is more often solved.
Female realtors have no opinion on the construction of the house, on the state of the market. They talk about square footage...
I would simply rather work with a male when I deal with a company. So they should be paid more.
This is from a consumer's point of view. I have no cotton-pickin idea if the worker's I am dealing with have children or not.
Linda

America hates families, period. It just falls on women more because women are still bound by gender stereotypes. As far as prefering employees with a dick or without a dick I really don't care as long they are not a dick and there are plenty of those of both sexes to go around.

Another aspect of this issue: Our society does not give enough credit for the actual experience of raising children. Making them is easy...raising them takes effort and not a small amount of intelligence (and a big dose of humor!).Any woman or man who has supervised a sleeping party of 8 ten year olds or has taken 7 children to the art museum can easily manage an office of five people with 10 phone lines and 4 cranky bosses. But when it comes time to go on the job interview, none of this experience is taken into account.

Another aspect of this issue: Our society does not give enough credit for the actual experience of raising children. Making them is easy...raising them takes effort and not a small amount of intelligence (and a big dose of humor!).Any woman or man who has supervised a sleeping party of 8 ten year olds or has taken 7 children to the art museum can easily manage an office of five people with 10 phone lines and 4 cranky bosses. But when it comes time to go on the job interview, none of this experience is taken into account.

Another aspect of this issue: Our society does not give enough credit for the actual experience of raising children. Making them is easy...raising them takes effort and not a small amount of intelligence (and a big dose of humor!).Any woman or man who has supervised a sleeping party of 8 ten year olds or has taken 7 children to the art museum can easily manage an office of five people with 10 phone lines and 4 cranky bosses. But when it comes time to go on the job interview, none of this experience is taken into account.

Another aspect of this issue: Our society does not give enough credit for the actual experience of raising children. Making them is easy...raising them takes effort and not a small amount of intelligence (and a big dose of humor!).Any woman or man who has supervised a sleeping party of 8 ten year olds or has taken 7 children to the art museum can easily manage an office of five people with 10 phone lines and 4 cranky bosses. But when it comes time to go on the job interview, none of this experience is taken into account.