"Researchers have found that women with children who work full time have a significantly larger wage gap compared to men than do women without children who work full time"

Isn't this proof that the wage differences have less to do with gender which is too broad to be used to judge effectiveness and more due to having children which IS? Let's be honest, having children makes it much more difficult to give 110% to your work. It could very well be an accurrate and legitimate marker to identify people who are unable or unwilling to work as hard or as long as others. So, if one woman is giving my company 110% and the other is giving 90% why should I not pay more to the woman giving more? That seems to be reward for hard work, not discrimination.

applied the same standard to men who have children. The point is your men do NOT pull your weight in the home, so women with children cannot advance equally with their male counterparts.

Did it ever occur to you that women without kids are picking up extra hours for the women who cannot report to work because of daycare issues?

Earning power will remain unequal unless men are confronted with the same daycare issues.

The folks that take your position always neglect to consider that men and women choose mates differently. Go to the MSN homepage right now and you will see links to articles for women regarding what to do when you can't find a mate as successful as you are. Have you ever seen an article for men about this "problem"?

This is a female construct - the expectation that a mate should be at least as successful. This means that successful women will have husbands who cannot take over child-rearing duties or provide the woman with the flexibility to work her ass off like most men do.

I don't know if you say my post today where I quoted The Economist. In an article about black America, they pointed out that black women with graduate degrees make 30% more than white women do with the same degrees. The explanation offered? That white women are more likely to have rich husbands (or husbands at all), and that they then feel less pressure to maximize their earnings.

There was a study published on Slate in the last year, Ellen, that showed men in America work a couple more hours per week in total than women. That is comparing all outside work and housework.

Your contention is a fallacy Ellen. Previous housework studies conducted inside feminist academia have been thoroughly refuted.

All of this rubbish also ignores the fact that women actively CHOOSE to work less or not at all after having kids.

Why should you apply the same standard to men with children? They obviously aren't affected the same way women are by having children.

It is like telling a man who works at 110% that because he has a child and because women with a child work at 90%, he should earn as if he worked 90%.

Instead of whining to the government or to employers women need to a) care less about their children b) demand more from their husbands (especially before having a child) or c) make the choice not to have children if it is undesirable.

What would be a good solution would be to make your husband or wife sign marriage contracts outlining their duties and responsibilities.

Wouldn't it be fairer to pay people who do 100% of their job 100% of their pay, regardless of whether they are men or women or whether or not they had kids?

If as an employee you say you are available 100% of the time but you only work 50% of the time because you have kids, shouldn't you be thrown to the bottom of that corporate ladder?

The sad truth is, men have habitually overworked because it is expected of them the same way women have habitually been the primary caregivers of children since that has been expected of them.

Punishing children with 50% parenting is a recipe for disaster.

Instead of whining to the government or to employers women need to a) care less about their children b) demand more from their husbands (especially before having a child) or c) make the choice not to have children if it is undesirable.

But people don't make the decision to have children on purely rational basis. It's an emotional response and I don't think that will ever change unless we suddenly evolve into Vulcans.

Society needs to take into account ALL the reasons why people do things. People don't always make rational decisions about EVERYTHING. It just doesn't happen.

Of course, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for our actions, but your choices, except for (b) were not really anywhere near the realm of reality.

The reality is that everyone benefits when "quality of life" is taken into consideration. If my choice is between having children and working in a lousy job with little or no hope of advancement and not having children and having a glowing career, that's not really a choice is it?

Yes, I and other women have "chosen" having children and working at jobs that aren't on the fast track, but that's because that's all the choice we have now and I think MORE choices can be created, if the will is there.

Society changed (women are going to work; men are becoming more involved in the day to day activities of a household and raising children) - and so the business world must change with it or face the possibility of perishing - or becoming the victim of socialism where it's forced upon them. Poor people gravitate, IMHO, to socialistic ideals because it's a quick fix and it looks like someone's doing something about the problem. Businesses can change that by seeing that change needs to take place and making the change.

If there's one thing that perhaps the communists got right is this: if all workers suddenly didn't show up to work one day, the corporations would feel it. Why do they treat their employees like dirt when they contribute to the production as much as the CEO does? I'm not saying that they all get paid the same, but some respect wouldn't be too much to ask, would it? They want your undivided loyalty, but then they kick you to the curb as soon as stocks go down while still paying deadbeat CEOs salary and bonuses. That's what makes no sense.

"applied the same standard to men who have children. The point is your men do NOT pull your weight in the home, so women with children cannot advance equally with their male counterparts. "

This is a valid point but it should not matter to the employer. How you divide up the work in the home between husband and wife is irrelevant to the employer. Only productivity at work matters. Personally I think men should strive to contribute more at home but I also think many women need to really examine their expectations that their husband share the load equally yet also be a super achieving "provider" at work.

And your full of shit.

That is very true. There are some things that we can do as individuals to make it a little easier to do the Superjob we want to do and that would be one of them.

And yes, if she wants him to be Superjob as well, that makes it difficult, unless of course these 2 Superjobs put together give you enough money to hire a housekeeper and a nanny - and they usually do.

And then these people get berated from the other side saying that they are horrible parents for wanting that and not spending enough time with the kids!

See, there is no pleasing anyone and that's why you please yourself and do what works for you. But that's also why sometimes there are these problems - divide and conquer. Society does "expect" things and it puts pressure on many people. Some of us are able to just say "fuck you", but many aren't. So we turn on each other and we forget to solve the central problem; or maybe there is really no problem except for people bitching about choices other people make. Quite frankly, unless it effects my wallet (like paying taxes for other people to keep pushing out the kids and never getting a job), then I really don't give a rat's ass. People need to do what they need to do in their life to make it work. If they both want to work 70 hours a week, why does that bother you? If they only want to work 40 hours a week; or one of them wants to stay home, why does that bother you?

BTW: "you" is a general "you" not to anyone in particular.

Why can't people just make choices and not be berated for them by one group or another?

Maybe just maybe there really is no problem and it's just created to keep us sheeple from seeing what's really going on.

Man, I'm in conspiracy mode today!

Cheers.

I completely agree with you that people should simply decide what works best for them. I don't see anything wrong with deciding to have kids and put in 90% effort at work. You decided your family is more important that the fast track to promotion. Good for you, I agree with your value assignment. What I don't agree with is when you refuse to make a decision and want both. You can either give 110% and be the work superstar or you can give 80% and have enough balance to enjoy your family. Don't expect to give 80% and then demand that the rest of the world slow down to your pace so that you can all make the same amount of money.

Well, I don't want everyone to make the same amount of money. And I'm not even saying that everyone has to slow down to my pace. But why is my pace the negative? Why do I get treated like shit in the business world because of my pace. Why does the pace in the business world need to be the way it is?

Now, mind you, I'm happy to be told, via facts, that the pace is the way it is for good reason AND that any other pace would simply not work out.

However, since many large corporations have flex-time options and the like, and are still in business, I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't hurt the bottom dollar. And I've seen small to mid-size law firms advertise "quality of life" when posting employment opportunities.

So, the "market" is responding.

I mean, it might not work for certain businesses and professions and so that's the way it would go. But for EVERYONE? I doubt it.

Again - business is not all robot-like. We are not automatons. We are human beings and that should be a factor in determining what goes on in the business world. People do not just respond to external stimuli like Pavlov's dog.

Why do I get the feeling that we've let a certain kind of person influence the business world and determine what it means to be a "good worker" - the man with the wife at home with the kids who can give 110% because he has no other responsibilities. Or the man with no wife and no kids who can do the same.

Why do they get to dictate what it SHOULD be like?

It's an old business model that really doesn't work anymore, IMHO.

Again, we are all in it together. We all have something to contribute. We should all be given the opportunity to show what we can do instead of pigeonholed before we even get out of the gate.

So I do understand what you are saying. But I'm saying that the free-market is hopefully going to respond to the changes going on in society. Again, quality of life issues benefit EVERYBODY. And if you want to be a workaholic, go ahead. I don't think that should be prohibited. But in and of itself, working 70 hours a week, to me, is not a sign of a great worker. It could be the sign of someone who doesn't know how to use their time well.

pshaw!

I have worked in a carrer for many years, when yes a 60 hour week is normal, 80 easily achieved. Does it mean I dont use my time valuably? No, not at all, I work at an incedibaly organized pace. Extra hours result from problems from other departments, unforseen consequences/emergencies, loss of staff temporarily, etc.

Of course I am going to get recognized for putting in extra time, and get promoted because of it.

I have women that report to me and I always enjoy their problem solving approaches the best. I dont care what their home situation is like, nor do I pay them based on it.

If you can only work 35 hours a week due to home issues, no problem, but the person who is able to pitch in and help when S*** hits the fan, is the one who gets ahead. I dont see that as unfair, just reality.

Of course I also see some minor sex discrimination with some of the older managers in my organization, and it drives me nuts. I call it "secretary syndrome". They treat all woman on some sub level as a mother/secretary when things are needed. Its not overt.

Yes, I am a man. The issue of gender discrimination does exist on some levels, but I feel not to the way some of you are arguing them. I have men that work for me too, and their family issues take them away from work alot. Guess what? they get passed up for promotions too. Its not gender specific.

Good luck to everyone though!