Scholarship For Whites Only

[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.

[Twisterdog]

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.

You're right, I missed reading your reply to CathyBogart before I typed my reply to you. I apologize for not reading more carefully.

...I was implying that employers, in general and on a whole, penalize women for NOT ditching their child in daycare ... 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.

Lady'sHuman said it best, I think, "There's no conspiracy, folks." And there isn't. Employers want dedicated, hard-working intelligent employees. And they pay the best employees the highest wages.

Corporate America is motivated by the bottom line, the almighty dollar. It's really that simple. Do the best job, get the biggest raise, make the most money. Managers, employers, businesses really care far less about race and gender than they care about profit and loss. Truly.

Mr. Manager is honestly not going to say, "I know Mary is a better salesperson then John, and if I put her on the big ABC Inc. account, she'll get a million more dollars in sales. That translates to an additional $50K bonus for me at year end. Hmmm ... nah, I think I'll put John on the account anyway, because he's a man and she's a woman. I'll just sacrifice that $50K, and just not buy myself that new Escalade I've been wanting." No.

If someone makes consistently less than others in their department or field ... maybe, just maybe, it's because they aren't perfoming as well as the others. Maybe it's not automatically due to the fact that they are female or African American.

If someone is undeniably discriminated against, then that person has grounds for a wonderful lawsuit. They should sue, they should win. Discrimination is quite illegal. I'm not saying it never happens. I'm just saying I've never personally seen it, and I'm quite sure it happens less frequently than it used to. But the people who run about screaming "Discrimination! Sexism! Racism!" at every possible Chicken-Little-The-Sky-Is-Falling moment, without first evaluating the possibility that other factors might be at play as well, are doing absolutely nothing to lessen discrimination now or in the future.

[Cataholic]

You're right, I missed reading your reply to CathyBogart before I typed my reply to you. I apologize for not reading more carefully.

OK. No big deal.

I can only tell you, from my experience (not necessarily from it personally happening to me) racism, sexism, or XYZism, happens. I have a active case, right now, where one side has admitted to not renting to someone cause, <gasp> they are black! Of course, they denied it all the way down the pike. Up until the morning before the depostion was to go forward. "I can't lie under oath (implying that lying without oath given is acceptable), I did tell so and so that I wouldn't rent to Ms. XYZ cause all that trouble 'they' cause me". This is one, very specific example. I see it quite often.

As for corporate America, I just don't think it is that simple. I do not think there is a conspiracy. And, aside from one encounter with a male boss letting me know just how I could get ahead (this was the late 1980s), I haven't really felt the discrimition, personally. BUT, I do see it professionally.

So, enough from me, I suppose. No hard feelings between you and I, I hope.

[Lady's Human]

Cataholic,

The racism that still exists is why we have lawyers and a legal system. It can be fixed, but it will NEVER be completely cured, especially while we have lovely groups such as the KKK, Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, World Church of the Creator, etc. in existence and spreading their message.

I'm a firm believer that racism is willful ignorance. I abhor it, and step on toes (and other body parts, both literally and figuratively) when I hear or see it.

It doesn't help, however, that in some cases, there are people who scream ___ism whenever they don't get what they want. That twists the perception of the masses when there are REAL ____ism cases being fought in courts. While I have no issue with court cases where there is geniune bias at play, decisions such as the recent one from LA (The firefighter who screamed racism at being fed dog food in his dinner, won megabucks, only to have court documents show that he was the instigator in similar cases) make a mockery of the system.

[Twisterdog]

OK. No big deal.

I can only tell you, from my experience (not necessarily from it personally happening to me) racism, sexism, or XYZism, happens. I have a active case, right now, where one side has admitted to not renting to someone cause, <gasp> they are black! Of course, they denied it all the way down the pike. Up until the morning before the depostion was to go forward. "I can't lie under oath (implying that lying without oath given is acceptable), I did tell so and so that I wouldn't rent to Ms. XYZ cause all that trouble 'they' cause me". This is one, very specific example. I see it quite often.

As for corporate America, I just don't think it is that simple. I do not think there is a conspiracy. And, aside from one encounter with a male boss letting me know just how I could get ahead (this was the late 1980s), I haven't really felt the discrimition, personally. BUT, I do see it professionally.

So, enough from me, I suppose. No hard feelings between you and I, I hope.

And you are right ... I do know that discrimination happens on a smaller, more personal level, like someone not renting to someone else. I was thinking more on a larger, Fortune 500 company scale, because that is my work experience.

Never hard feelings! I love an intelligent debate, I never take it personally.

[TamanduaGirl]

I think sometimes people may be a little to sensitive too, not just the filing cases to win money or something. I know when I was a teen and went in the local store one day ahd the clerk following me around like she thought I was going to steal something. Since I'm not any minority skin color I was thinking it was because I was a teen. I think it was just that I was prone to wearing a black leather jacket at the time and probably looked extra bad that day or something, lol. You know sometimes your hair is over due for a wash and you;ve been burning that candle at both ends and you got rings under the eyes ect. and you just look like trouble. But as mentioned some will tend to think race first, like I thought age and not what might be other more obviouse reasons.