I mean there is a fucking difference between a social engineer and a NASA engineer for example.

I think the trend you're interpreting as 'sexist' may have more to do what jobs women chose compared to men (as mentioned) and just having a blog survey 'engineers' does pretty much zilch to show it one way or the other.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ^ yes ]

I dont know if thats what I think or not. I just want to see information on it, if it exists.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM. Reason : *]

5/4/2009 3:48:18 PM

I see your point Lokken, but you don't see it as a problem that more men get higher paying jobs than women? Do you think it's all "what women choose compared to men" and not at all "it's easier for men to get these higher paying jobs"?

If the problem boils down to, "women are choosing to make 80%" less than men. WHY? Why would women choose to make less? Why are we looking for ways to justify this as ok instead of looking at ways to mitigate this? Maybe there are industries that need an infusion of women. Maybe there needs to be more encouragement at a young age for girls to be interested in science and research. Maybe we're paying NASA engineers too much. Beats the shit out of me. But to write off the gender gap is wrong in my opinion.

5/4/2009 3:56:14 PM

The question is absolutely why do women pick jobs that earn less. I think in the case of engineering its definitely a social issue. Engineering is traditionally a male job and computer science is traditionally a male nerd's job.

There was some study done that suggests that its more that women are threatened by the prospect of entering a field that is dominated by men rather than having issues with the content.

Eitherway i dont know what can be done about it. From my standpoint its a lack of available women, not a predjudice against them thats keeping them out of the jobs.

5/4/2009 4:08:19 PM

Well right I'm not writing it off as anything, but I think its a bit more complicated than evil corporations paying women less 'cause they can'.

I dont see it as a problem if women chose different career paths than men do. As long as the options are there and they are treated fairly in whatever line they chose then we've done our job.

5/4/2009 4:09:49 PM

Quote :

"What? The gap actually widens as years of experience increase? Is your mind blown yet?"

No, not really. Given that years of experience is highly generational, meaning that someone with 12+ years of experience is more likely to have taken a job during a period where the wage gap was higher and the 0 - 3 years worth of experience would be more indicative of the current actualized wage gap.

Quote :

" *EDIT* OHHHHH, I GET IT. You think that even in engineering, women are choosing to take the lower paying jobs. "

actually this is true to some degrees. i.e. women choose industrial engineering or textiles while men may choose computer science or mechanical engineering.

Quote :

""women are choosing to make 80%" less than men. WHY? Why would women choose to make less? "

a few notes here. None of your data, even when attributed to experience which has a large generational bias attached, suggests women are making 80% of what a man makes. Regardless of that a few women would, while not choose, would be more content with 80% of that which a man makes because they do not typically feel the same compulsive need to be a family supporter as men do. Men more readily search out higher employment and as a result they get paid higher. Since women are not actively searching for higher wages in the same fashion men do they are passively choosing lower wages.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : mentality of women.]

5/4/2009 4:12:14 PM

Shit, cat, you just described my household last year. We had a child, I went out and found a job that pays 45% more. My wife kept her career (although she was promoted).

I think we can agree that this issue is complicated and put it to rest as far as this thread is concerned. Since the OP doesn't feel the need to comment on wage issues, I don't see the point of continuing the threadjack.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming, nipples in public...

5/4/2009 4:42:46 PM

imo i think if the op is serious about this then she needs to fdt itt.

5/4/2009 5:35:09 PM

Quote :

"No, not really. Given that years of experience is highly generational, meaning that someone with 12+ years of experience is more likely to have taken a job during a period where the wage gap was higher and the 0 - 3 years worth of experience would be more indicative of the current actualized wage gap."

Not to mention that the highest level on that chart is "10+ years." 10+ years could mean 10 years or 30 years. It is certainly plausible to think that there might be more men than women with 20-30 years experience that are raising curve for the 10+ years category.

And, add to that the fact that 10 years experience isn't always the same 10 years experience. There is a big difference between the guy who has worked 10 straight years and the woman who worked for four years, took six years off to have kids and see them off to school, and then went back to work for six more years. She would be practically starting from scratch after her six year hiatus. How many men do you know who take off years at a time from working versus the number of women who do the same?

5/5/2009 3:09:30 PM

Quote :

"I think we can agree that this issue is complicated and put it to rest as far as this thread is concerned. Since the OP doesn't feel the need to comment on wage issues, I don't see the point of continuing the threadjack. Back to our regularly scheduled programming, nipples in public..."

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2009 3:24:36 PM

Maybe if you were more interesting I would read your posts, but even if I did I would still post pretty much whatever I want in here.

5/5/2009 3:37:44 PM

How did this thread move away from, nipples in the sun?

5/5/2009 4:05:45 PM

It was my fault, which I've been trying to rectify, but Skack won't let it go. He's obviously a closet homo. Or a woman. Sorry Skack.

5/5/2009 4:12:24 PM

PROTEST

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : i will remove this by 4:45pm. just trying to bring a little levity.]

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : nsfw]

5/5/2009 4:16:09 PM

http://www.tera.ca/

5/5/2009 6:08:11 PM

I agree with this topic, but its men with their "OMG!! Titties!!!" attitude that is going to continue this unequal treatment. Until the sexual treatment of the breasts is gone, women won't be free to go topless. I really agree with this statement:

Quote :

"if we weren't raised to believe that breasts were a shameful thing that should never be viewed except under certain circumstances, we'd have a completely different view of it."

5/5/2009 7:20:56 PM

WHOA WHOA WHOA.

The problem is not the sexuality of the breast. The problem is the stigma against sexuality. Please do not try to take the sexuality of breasts away. If we weren't such closet freaks and openly expressed our sexuality it wouldn't be a problem. Lousy puritans.

5/5/2009 7:47:13 PM

also if we weren't so sexually repressed a lot of the more aberrant, and some times abhorrent, sexual fetishes would likely not fully develop.

sexual repression does nothing productive. the vast majority of people have sex and if you peruse craigslists casual encounters or almost any other internet website it becomes obvious that people have a wide range of sexual fetishes that are far deeper and darker than what we give anyone credit for wanting to participate in, yet they are not uncommon.

5/5/2009 8:00:27 PM

^^ you have a good point.

5/5/2009 8:51:18 PM

Quote :

"Please do not try to take the sexuality of breasts away."

/thread

5/5/2009 10:42:55 PM

So to conclude...
You can waste your time protesting in vain, move to another country, or just accept that you have to cover them titties.

I think that wraps it up. Nobody post after me. There is nothing left to say.

5/5/2009 10:50:51 PM

I feel that if women were allowed to show their breasts in public, it would do alot to remove the taboo/unwarranted sexuality that surrounds them. I don't think americans will suddenly become less prudish unless steps are taken.

5/6/2009 10:43:37 AM

Quote :

"unwarranted sexuality"

NOOOO! This is not the problem. Leave them sexual. Embrace their sexuality. Everyone needs to admit that they like to fuck and there's nothing wrong with that. Then it isn't a big deal.

Now: woman walks down street, has nice legs exposed. I think "nice legs" and get back to whatever I was doing before.
Future: Woman walks down street, has nice breasts exposed. I think "nice breasts" and get back to whatever I was doing before.

We don't have to de-sexualize (not a word) breasts to solve this problem. Why would you want to give up that power anyway?

5/6/2009 11:02:37 AM

Not to mention the fact that the sexuality associated with breasts is not something fabricated by our culture or religion. It is built in to us as a species.

5/6/2009 12:58:16 PM

^ exactly

Quote :

"unwarranted sexuality"

as a woman you may not be attracted to boobs yourself but that foes not make the sexuality surrounding them for the opposite gender unwarranted. That would be equal to saying the sexuality surrounding the vagina is unwarranted or the penis or men's pecs or an ass or lips etc...

none of this is unwarranted. it's how we're built. removing taboo of showing breasts will not do anything to remove the sexuality around them since people are attracted to whatever they are attracted regardless of the clothing that surrounds them.

i just had an interesting though. i wonder how the incidents of rape would be affected. arguably wearing clothes in general is stupid. sure they keep you warm, but if you're not cold then why wear clothing. the point is clothing exists mostly to reduce the overt sexuality surrounding the human body and the impulses they create. Most people could control these impulses regardless, but i wonder if those who typically cannot control their impulses and commit rape would have a harder time doing so.

5/6/2009 1:42:29 PM

Except some clothing is designed to have the opposite effect. The suggestiveness of concealing certain parts of the body can be more sexually appealing than just be stark naked. IMO.

Clothes, no clothes, we just need to evolve into breaking the taboo against sexuality. I don't think this will happen though, as there's a lot of money in it.

5/6/2009 1:54:28 PM