Scholarship For Whites Only

[Lady's Human]

King,

The OT list in the PO is voluntary. The point I was making is that on average, women working the same jobs as men in the plant I'm in make less. Not because of the wage scale (all on equal footing) but because of the number of hours worked, because the female employees are less likely to sign up for overtime.

[king2005]

King,

The OT list in the PO is voluntary. The point I was making is that on average, women working the same jobs as men in the plant I'm in make less. Not because of the wage scale (all on equal footing) but because of the number of hours worked, because the female employees are less likely to sign up for overtime.

If the women choose not to do OT then thats their own problem. Thats a large issue with the stats, t doesn't break it down. Compair normal hours & then OT thats asked, required, forced to do or does not want to do. I'm sure that people will realize that Women choose not to make more money on average, not that they cannot.

Thats why I dissgree with the race or sex schoolarships. It should be based on skills period.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

I'm sure that people will realize that Women choose not to make more money on average, not that they cannot.

I suppose you could argue that women choose not to make more money because they just don't like working overtime.

However, you could also point out, that most of the burden of childcare, household tasks, etc, falls on women in most households. Maybe, they simply don't have the time to work OT, unlike some of their male counterparts.

[Lady's Human]

PC, in our case, it's very simple. The occupation I'm in pays more than the occupation my wife had when we had children. (Electronic/industrial maintenance vs newspaper advertising). Doesn't matter which was in which profession.

As she had the lower wage job, she cut her hours back to allow me to work more. It's just economic common sense. Had it been the other way around, I would have removed myself from the OT list and stayed home more.

There's no conspiracy, folks. Move on.

[Twisterdog]

I suppose you could argue that women choose not to make more money because they just don't like working overtime.

However, you could also point out, that most of the burden of childcare, household tasks, etc, falls on women in most households. Maybe, they simply don't have the time to work OT, unlike some of their male counterparts.

If most of the burden of childcare, household tasks, etc. falls on the women in a household, that is their own fault for not saying, "Hey, buddy, get your lazy butt off the couch and help me with the dishes." If he's a jerk and won't, then it's her own fault for staying with him. It's not the 50's anymore. Come on ... June and Ward Cleaver is ancient history. I think that is a very sexist and outdated attitude to have.

And, just as a side note, in a lot of households (mine included), yes, the woman (me) does do most of the household tasks ... cooking dinner, laundry, etc. However, my husband does most, if not all, of the outside stuff ... mowing the grass, cleaning up after the dogs, taking care of the cars, the gutters, the trees, the snow removal, taking out the garbage, etc. I don't feel compelled to divide everything exactly down the middle ... "You must cook dinner 3.5 times this week!" ... because I don't want him to say, "Ok, fine. Then you must change the oil in all the cars next month." Nope.

I know women who decided to take a few months, or a few years, off after they had a child. They chose to do so, no one forced them to. They could have put the child in daycare and gone right back to work. But, if you choose to take five years off from a job, and your office mate chooses to work full time during those five years, of course he OR she is going to be making more then you when you go back to work five years later. I also know men who chose to stay home and be a stay-at-home dad when the children were born, or who opted to work part-time. I'm sure these men expect and accept the fact that when they go back to work they will be making much less then their continuously employed counterparts. There are a LOT of reasons why women make less then men. And why some men make less then some women. They ONLY reason is not sexism.

[Cataholic]

I know women who decided to take a few months, or a few years, off after they had a child. They chose to do so, no one forced them to. They could have put the child in daycare and gone right back to work. But, if you choose to take five years off from a job, and your office mate chooses to work full time during those five years, of course he OR she is going to be making more then you when you go back to work five years later. I also know men who chose to stay home and be a stay-at-home dad when the children were born, or who opted to work part-time. I'm sure these men expect and accept the fact that when they go back to work they will be making much less then their continuously employed counterparts. There are a LOT of reasons why women make less then men. And why some men make less then some women. They ONLY reason is not sexism.

WOW. I am always so amazed when I see this sort of comment from another woman. Women are penalized everyday for "choosing" to stay at home with their child/ren, and re-entering the workforce 5 years later. It isn't that they are not making the same as their former co-worker. It is that they are not making the same as their counterpart...that man in the same position as they are, for whatever reason.

Just think, I coulda ditched my 6 week old infant in daycare JUST TO SECURE MY POSITION IN THE WORKPLACE. What a trade off. I suppose the coined phrase, "mommy track" was invented by someone like me- a working mother, who just had a little too much time on their hands to spare?

From women everywhere, mothers or not, Thank You!

[king2005]

Here in Canada both parents can take time off for a total of 1yr, & NOT loose their status/pay/etc at their job. The mother doesn't have to take any time off at all. The father can do that. The mothers choose to stay at home for the whole year.

[Cataholic]

Here in Canada both parents can take time off for a total of 1yr, & NOT loose their status/pay/etc at their job. The mother doesn't have to take any time off at all. The father can do that. The mothers choose to stay at home for the whole year.

I had heard that, and I think **most** other countries are a bit more 'forgiving' to people that choose to have children. I love being American. I love being female, and a mother. However, when I see what happens to kids in our society, I do wonder where we went/go wrong. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to the theory that children need their moms/dads during the formative years.

[Twisterdog]

WOW. I am always so amazed when I see this sort of comment from another woman. Women are penalized everyday for "choosing" to stay at home with their child/ren, and re-entering the workforce 5 years later. It isn't that they are not making the same as their former co-worker. It is that they are not making the same as their counterpart...that man in the same position as they are, for whatever reason.

Just think, I coulda ditched my 6 week old infant in daycare JUST TO SECURE MY POSITION IN THE WORKPLACE. What a trade off. I suppose the coined phrase, "mommy track" was invented by someone like me- a working mother, who just had a little too much time on their hands to spare?

From women everywhere, mothers or not, Thank You!

So are you saying that if worker A works for five years, gaining five years of experience, that they don't deserve a higher pay check than worker B, who took five years off and has five years less experience? It doesn't matter one bit if worker A is a man or a woman, it doesn't matter if worker B took five years off to stay home with a child, or to go on safari in the wilds of Africa. Five years less experience equals five years less raises.

Maybe I have just had the fortune to work for progressive companies around progressive people, but I can tell you that I know a lot of men who took time off when their children born, and a lot of women who became the primary "breadwinner". Haven't you all seen this too? Surely I can't be the only one to see that times have indeed changed.

I honestly have never made less then a man in my position. (I worked in Finance, I knew what everyone in the company made, BTW.) I've seriously never seen this.

As for "ditching" your infant in daycare, I suppose I'm up for the "worst parent of the year award" then, because I went right back to work after my son was born. I resent your implication that I am somehow less of a good mother than you because I chose to do so.

Do you seriously think it would be fair if someone who had spent the last five years staying home came back into the workforce where I had been working those five years, and he or she expected the same salary I had, so he or she wasn't being "penalized" for choosing to take a five year break from work?

[Cataholic]

So are you saying that if worker A works for five years, gaining five years of experience, that they don't deserve a higher pay check than worker B, who took five years off and has five years less experience? It doesn't matter one bit if worker A is a man or a woman, it doesn't matter if worker B took five years off to stay home with a child, or to go on safari in the wilds of Africa. Five years less experience equals five years less raises.

Maybe I have just had the fortune to work for progressive companies around progressive people, but I can tell you that I know a lot of men who took time off when their children born, and a lot of women who became the primary "breadwinner". Haven't you all seen this too? Surely I can't be the only one to see that times have indeed changed.

I honestly have never made less then a man in my position. (I worked in Finance, I knew what everyone in the company made, BTW.) I've seriously never seen this.

As for "ditching" your infant in daycare, I suppose I'm up for the "worst parent of the year award" then, because I went right back to work after my son was born. I resent your implication that I am somehow less of a good mother than you because I chose to do so.

Do you seriously think it would be fair if someone who had spent the last five years staying home came back into the workforce where I had been working those five years, and he or she expected the same salary I had, so he or she wasn't being "penalized" for choosing to take a five year break from work?

I think I clarified with Cathy's post that I was not saying what you seem to think that I am. I am talking about a person in a similar situation. The word similiar means just that, similiar. Experience, education, etc. It doesn't mean five years less experience. So, continue, please, to read something different than I am typing. I can't control that. I won't bother explaining it a third time, though.

As for whether you ditched your child into daycare, and whether you qualify for mother of the year, I cannot say. I don't know your parenting issues. Only you do. I was not implying anything about anyone's parenting choices. I was implying that employers, in general and on a whole, penalize women for NOT ditching their child in daycare.

I do give you kudos, though, for returning to work immediately after your child was born. That seems significant to you, and if that was what you wanted to do, I think it is wonderful. Not everyone makes those same choices.

And, as for not seeing any sign of income disparity, well, you might be the odd man out! Pun intended. Just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[CathyBogart]

Wait...you don't honeslty think that someone who has been out of the workforce for five years dserves the same pay as someone who has spent those last five years working, just because the person who has gone was home raising a baby?!?! That seems more than a tad ridiculous.

[Cataholic]

Wait...you don't honeslty think that someone who has been out of the workforce for five years dserves the same pay as someone who has spent those last five years working, just because the person who has gone was home raising a baby?!?! That seems more than a tad ridiculous.

No, that was not what I was saying. I was saying that someone that took 5 years off (or however long) should come back into the work force at a pay level equal to someone else in that position. So, if that person, prior to staying at home for five years, had five years experience, or, whatever, they should get the same pay as the person that also has five years, or whatever, experience. I am saying that women (or men) should not be penalized for staying at home, raising kids.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

If most of the burden of childcare, household tasks, etc. falls on the women in a household, that is their own fault for not saying, "Hey, buddy, get your lazy butt off the couch and help me with the dishes." If he's a jerk and won't, then it's her own fault for staying with him. It's not the 50's anymore. Come on ... June and Ward Cleaver is ancient history. I think that is a very sexist and outdated attitude to have.

This thread has been very informative. Evidently, all racism and sexism (let's just say all "isms") have been completely eradicated in the last 50 odd years. And if you suggest otherwise, by jove, well then you are racist or sexist yourself!

Somebody should notify the ACLU and let them know that they are antiquated.

[Vela]

I don't think all racism and sexism is gone, but I do think that if scholarships are offered, or ANY financial help is offered for schooling, which is what this thread started out to be about, it should be done so strictly based on academic merit and income or lack thereof, and should have NOTHING to do with race at all. i don't think there should be a caucasian College Fund, but neither do I think there should be a United Negro College Fund (is that even politically correct anymore?) or a Hispanic College Fund. Level the playing field, anyone of any race or sex, who has worked hard and has good grades ought to be able to qualify for scholarships and financial aid for college, the end. Making it about race, is only furthering racism!

[Twisterdog]

This thread has been very informative. Evidently, all racism and sexism (let's just say all "isms") have been completely eradicated in the last 50 odd years. And if you suggest otherwise, by jove, well then you are racist or sexist yourself!

Somebody should notify the ACLU and let them know that they are antiquated.

Oh come now. No one in this country is going to say ALL racism and sexism has been eradicated. However, I would venture to say that just about everyone in this country is going to say that there is MUCH less racism and sexism than there was 50 years ago. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not improved.

Remember the old adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right."? THAT is the point almost everyone is trying to make in this thread. ALL prejudice is wrong, whether it is directed towards blacks, whites, males, or females. You cannot fix a past issue by going 180 degrees in the opposite, but equally wrong, direction. ANYthing based solely on sex or race is WRONG. If people want further decreases in the level of racism and sexism in this country, then people need to stop making scholarships, jobs, clubs, etc. all ABOUT race and gender.

And, yes, I DO think affirmative action is antiquated. Absolutely. It is an idea whose time has come and gone.