Democrats, dost thou know where thou art?

[The Heretic]

Why is Obama such a liar? Or Obama's War on Women.

President Obama’s persistent ’77-cent’ claim on the wage gap gets a new Pinocchio rating

“Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns…in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong.”

–President Obama, remarks on equal pay for equal work, April 8, 2014

In 2012, during another election season, The Fact Checker took a deep dive in the statistics behind this factoid and found it wanting. We awarded the president only a Pinoochio, largely because he is citing Census Bureau data, but have wondered since then if we were too generous.

We also called out the president when he used this fact in the 2013 State of the Union address. And in the 2014 State of the Union address. And yet he keeps using it. So now it’s time for a reassessment.

The Truth Teller video above also goes through the details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... 4&hpid=z11

And naturally Obama is not only a liar, but a hypocrite as well:

A study released in January showed that female White House staff members make on average 88 cents for every dollar a male staff member earns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/po ... ef=us&_r=0

White House defends its own wage gap as Obama focuses on equal pay for women

But before Obama announced the initiative, the White House was defending what some say is its own pay gap. A McClatchy review of White House salaries in January found that when the same calculations that produced the 77 cents was applied to the White House, the average female pay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is less than the average male pay. When counted the same way that produced the 77-cent figure, the analysis found, women overall at the White House make 91 cents for every dollar men make. That’s an average salary of $84,082 for men and $76,516 for women.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/07/2 ... l-pay.html

Not that Obama's War on Women is anything new. He has paid women less for years:

On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas- ... less-males

[portia]

As a woman, and an attorney, and as a person with an interrupted history of employment, I have noticed the difference of pay for years. The problem is that NO-ONE wants to delve deeply enpough into the subject to capture all the relevant statistics.

Factors no-one wants to try to analyze:

Years of experince and depth of experience: Women still have more interrupted work histories than men, so--on average--there will be less time spent in a particular job, (and--possibly--less responsibility) than the average man has.(A woman with 4 years of experience will be offered a job at a smaller salary than a man with 7 years of experience. As the averages even out, and experience increases, this can disappear).
There are still discriminatory factors, such as differing evaluations of the same work, leading to differing promotions, etc. This can carry over from one employer to another.
Extra work such as publications, leading a legal team, etc., are still going to men, more often, so that a woman will not be as likely to have a history of them as the average man.
Whatever differences there are in a person's prior employment will still show up when a person gets to the White House. They cannot be cancelled out immediately.

I thought that the 91% was a very good showing, considering all of the above factors.
Raw numbers mean nothing.

The various factors that people come up with show how much they are not analysing, and should be considered as "soft numbers."

[The Heretic]

Obama is not the only liar Democrat waging a war on women:

It turns out President Obama isn't the only hypocritical Democrat, in fact Senate Democrats have their own problems when it comes to equal pay. We pulled the official payroll records of various offices and calculated the average pay for men and women in each office for the most recent 6 month period available. Since some employees only worked a portion of the six month period, we calculated how much each person was paid per day in order to give an accurate representation. Here's what we found:
• Mark Udall pays women 85 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
• Mary Landrieu pays women 88 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
• Mark Begich pays women 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
• Mark Warner pays women 75 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
• Gary Peters pays women 67 cents for every dollar that a man makes.

That means on average, these five Democrats on the ballot in battleground states pay women in their office 79 cents for every dollar made by a male employee. All Republicans support equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender or race for working families, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. Democrats, on the other hand, don't practice what they preach. They're hypocrites.

http://e.nrsc.org/t/j-F076335FEFAAE4A4

[portia]

Since the concept that raw numbers mean nothing and that these calculations are just a tiny bit more complex than Grade School arithmatic seems to have escaped you, I will repeat.

Heretic seems to have a very well thumbed copy of "How to Lie With Statistics." I know that this garbage is B-----t and I think that most of us know it too. If you ever want to get at something more related to truth, I will be happpy to read it. I hope the level of sophistication of the facts you accept doesn't tell us anything about you.

[The Heretic]

Since the concept that raw numbers mean nothing and that these calculations are just a tiny bit more complex than Grade School arithmatic seems to have escaped you, I will repeat.

Heretic seems to have a very well thumbed copy of "How to Lie With Statistics." I know that this garbage is B-----t and I think that most of us know it too. If you ever want to get at something more related to truth, I will be happpy to read it. I hope the level of sophistication of the facts you accept doesn't tell us anything about you.

Portia seems to lack a basic level of reading comprehension. If Portia had actually read the information presented, she might have noted that her 'factors no one wants to analyze' were part of the Fact Check, and why Obama had his Pinocchios increased. In fact, were Portia an honest broker, she would note that her claims about 'How to Lie with Statistics' and 'this garabage is B------t' and is 'not related to truth' would be applied to those she sought to defend above with the comment about 91% being a 'good showing', that is Obama and the Democrats. But that is beyond Portia's capability, after all democrats and the left should not be held to the standards they lay out. Just like according to Portia, they should not be held to promises they make.
The NYT article had Obama paying women at 88% the level of men. The District level was 95%.
Since Obama and Democrats have been harping on this for ages now, I wonder if Portia has ever called it 'B------t' or claimed it to be 'lying with statistics' and not 'related to the truth' in reference to Obama and Democrats. Somehow I doubt it.

[portia]

Heretic needs to read his own posts.
The article on Congressional pay doesn't claim to count, or even mention, any of the factors that Heretic seems to think that it does. Those exist in Heretic's imagination. All it claims is that for people who have worked less than 6 months, the day by day payment was analysed. So what?

Women, for better or worse, are still subject to a variety of experience shortcomings, most of which are not directly or entirely their fault, but they still count when salaries are discussed. Counting some of them is not totally irrational and, until they are abolished, there will be a discrepency in payment. Getting to 91% is pretty good, and it would be interesting to see how the White House managed it. However, I do not assume that the calculations included factors that the article did not even claim to count.

[The Heretic]

Portia, of course, needs to pay attention. I referred to the Fact Check article (Portia's 'factors no one wants to analyze' were part of the Fact Check). Indeed, I referred to Obama who does not use Portia's factors in his assertions, as a liar. Portia might also have noted, had she been paying attention, or was capable of honesty, that I referred to holding the Democrats and Obama to their own standards. This is, naturally, beyond Portia's level of comprehension.

Lets fix Portia's post to what it should have read as:
Since the concept that raw numbers mean nothing and that these calculations are just a tiny bit more complex than Grade School arithmatic seems to have escaped Obama and the Democrats, I will repeat.
Obama and the Democrats seem to have a very well thumbed copy of "How to Lie With Statistics." I know that this garbage is B-----t and I think that most of us know it too. If Obama and the Democrats ever want to get at something more related to truth, I will be happpy to read it. I hope the level of sophistication of the facts Obama and the Democrats accept doesn't tell us anything about them.

It seems as well that my doubt that Portia has ever called it 'B------t' or claimed it to be 'lying with statistics' and not 'related to the truth' in reference to Obama and Democrats claims, was well founded.

More Democrats waging war on women:

May 24, 2012 5:00 am
A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 33.8 percent.
...
significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent
...
Women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more.

While the gap is significant, it is slightly smaller than that of the White House, which pays men about $10,000, or 13 percent, more on average, according to a previous Free Beacon analysis.
...
The pay differential is quite striking in some cases, especially among leading Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who runs the Senate Democratic messaging operation, paid men $19,454 more on average, a 36 percent difference.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent.

Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent:
•Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent
•Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent
•Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent
•Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent
•Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent
•Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent
•Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent
•Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent
•Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent
•Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent

http://freebeacon.com/politics/senate-d ... ray-lilly/

[portia]

The "fact Checker" dip into the pool of equal pay, doesn't even cover the big toe. I looked at those blogs and commentaries and found that they were long on opinion and very, very short on facts. I didn't even see one that tried to sort the pay scales of Congressional employees by job title, so that--apparently--the chief of staff's pay was averaged in with the newest file clerk. Does that make sense? Is that a "fact check?" Was Heretic telling the truth?
The admin. should also separate their staff's information by job title.

At the very least, no analysis will be adequate, or deserving of any attention until at the very least staff salaries are separated by job title (there can be some problems with that, too, but at least separating by job title is easy, and may be public, and it is a start).

Until then, all of us have better things to do than pay attention to this debate.

[The Heretic]

The "fact Checker" dip into the pool of equal pay, doesn't even cover the big toe. I looked at those blogs and commentaries and found that they were long on opinion and very, very short on facts. I didn't even see one that tried to sort the pay scales of Congressional employees by job title, so that--apparently--the chief of staff's pay was averaged in with the newest file clerk. Does that make sense? Is that a "fact check?" Was Heretic telling the truth?

Is Portia capable of reading? Why is Portia incapable of understanding the point of holding lying Democrats to the standards they put forth? If Portia does actually understand that point, then Portia is not telling the truth.

The admin. should also separate their staff's information by job title.

At the very least, no analysis will be adequate, or deserving of any attention until at the very least staff salaries are separated by job title (there can be some problems with that, too, but at least separating by job title is easy, and may be public, and it is a start).

Note again that here what Portia should be doing, were she 'telling the truth', is saying that the Admin and Democrats, are deserving of no attention on their repeated assertions of a wage gap until they properly account for 'factors no one wants to analyze'.

Instead, Portia's immediate reaction is to offer defenses for the Democrats who have been engaging in what she says are lies when others do it. Considering Portia's statist impulse this is not surprising. Holding Democrats to the standards they lay out in just not to be done.

Until then, all of us have better things to do than pay attention to this debate.

Yet you keep paying attention to it.

[portia]

Not any more. Since I have decided you are hopeless.

[The Heretic]

Not any more. Since I have decided you are hopeless.

And yet you paid attention to it again.

[Minardil]

So if the entire "wage gap" thing is a total myth, and Women already earn equal pay for equal work in all sectors of society EXCEPT the offices of elected Democrats, why are Republicans - who claim to be universally in support of equal pay - so universally opposed to a law where the only result (according to Republican data) will be to force misogynist hypocritical Democrats to pay their female employees fairly?

[The Heretic]

Hmmm... Minardil, as usual for him, creates a strawman.

Continuing with liars:

About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then” and 15 percent “never

How often do you think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters?
13-15 Apr 14
Most of the time 37%

Some of the time 24

Only now and then 20

Never 15

(Don’t know) 3

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... trefresh=1
It would have been interesting if the poll included questions on how many of those who say Obama lies would agree with portia that it does not matter that no one should care and it is perfectly acceptable?

Even Minardil's favorite fact-checking site, the very biased Politifarce, could not keep covering for Obama, and award him Lie of the Year:

Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-keep-it/

[Minardil]

Oh, big surprise, both sides are being less than truthful in their statistical analysis:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/playing-politics-with-the-pay-gap/

The AEI study didn’t compare wages for similar positions, but the AEI’s Perry told us in an email that Carney is “probably basically correct” when he says the pay for men and women in the same positions with the same experience level is likely the same. As a New York Times graphic on such salaries said, most White House salaries are set by a pay schedule. “So it’s probably a matter of just following a formula based on job title, previous job experience, and maybe level of education,” Perry said.

The New York Times breakdown of the jobs by pay scale shows that women slightly outnumber men in the bottom two income categories, while men slightly outnumber women in the top two. Perry agreed that the pay gap in the White House is “partly/mostly explained” by that graphic. There are simply more women in lower-paying junior positions, and so the median salary lags that of men.

And that is why Blackburn’s comment that “the White House [is] paying women 88 cents for every dollar that a guy earns in comparable positions,” (our emphasis) is incorrect. The comparison is for all jobs, not comparable ones, and men hold more of the upper-level positions.

Of course, this still doesn't explain why Republicans are so hysterically opposed to a law that they say won't do anything, since they say there isn't a problem.

I'd say that what they ARE worried about is potential lawsuits brought by women who CAN show past (or current) pay discrimination, no matter how even the playing field is (or isn't) now.

[portia]

Finally, SOMEONE is trying to do an fairly sound analysis of the equality of women and men--pay grade by pay grade. IT IS ABOUT TIME! The whole body of employees comparisons are worth nothing and mostly go to illustrate that the speaker (Senators, commentators and the White House) haven't a clue what they are talking about.

I think I will see if I can get an email for the Econ Dept for U of Michigan and ask Mark Perry what grade he would give a student who tried to do an analysis of the equality of men and women's pay, the way he did?

[portia]

[quote="The Heretic"]Portia, of course, needs to pay attention. I referred to the Fact Check article (Portia's 'factors no one wants to analyze' were part of the Fact Check). No, they weren't I invite a QUOTE if you disagree.

[The Heretic]

Minardil, after providing a stawman, then proceeds to attack the strawman he created. Typical Minardil, and again tries to shift the subject to Republicans in a thread about Democrats.

None of which change the fact that Obama lies. Repeatedly. And he and his worships protes when the standards he lays out are applied to him.

Portia, of course, after saying she was no longer going to pay attention (not that she actually had been to begin with) is back again paying attention...

women in general work fewer hours than men in a year
the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay
a Georgetown University survey on the economic value of different college majors, showed how nine of the 10 most remunerative majors were dominated by men

[Minardil]

Minardil, after providing a stawman, then proceeds to attack the strawman he created. Typical Minardil, and again tries to shift the subject to Republicans in a thread about Democrats.

None of which change the fact that Obama lies. Repeatedly. And he and his worships protes when the standards he lays out are applied to him.

Portia, of course, after saying she was no longer going to pay attention (not that she actually had been to begin with) is back again paying attention...

women in general work fewer hours than men in a year
the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay
a Georgetown University survey on the economic value of different college majors, showed how nine of the 10 most remunerative majors were dominated by men

You have made the claim that Democratic lawmakers are the real perpetrators of unequal pay. Do you feel that unequal gender pay exists anywhere else in our society?

[Minardil]

Actually, forget I asked, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you lack the courage to say anything here.

[The Heretic]

You have made the claim that Democratic lawmakers are the real perpetrators of unequal pay. Do you feel that unequal gender pay exists anywhere else in our society?

Note that what I actually did was say Obama was lying when he again made the 77-cent claim, and I backed it up with a Washington Post fact check. Then I showed Obama and Democrats to be hypocrites as well as liars by applying their standards to them which show that Obama and various other Democrats pay women less than men.
In a pathetic attempt to distract from that point (holding Democrats to standards they lay out), Minardil dishonestly constructs a strawman, and tells me what I am claiming. Minardil does this with great regularity (while claiming he just wants have a conversation).
When Minardil thinks that this is being done to him this is Minardil's reaction:

And how you resort to outright lying about my position.
[...]
Why do you insist on presenting this completely dishonest summary of my opinions? Are you so far gone that the only way you can carry on a discussion is to simply make up the other side of the argument?

[ILvEowyn]

From Heretic's article:

But the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages — it is 14 cents — but then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers.

It is worth noting that the gap can go in the other direction as well. Heidi Hartman, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, noted that the gap widens to 27.6 cents if part-time workers were included. She also said that in a 2004 survey, IWPR calculated that across 15 years, prime age women earned just 38 percent of what prime age men earned–an apparent wage gap of 62 percent.

I guess i'm missing the part where you caught Obama in a lie.

How often do you think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters?

That poll means exactly nothing in determining who is lying or what is a lie.

[portia]

I did, in fact send a letter to the U.of Michigan Econ Dept. asking among other things if Mark Perry would give a passing grade to a student who applied the same methodology to the wage comparisons that he had.
I will report, later, on any replies.

[Minardil]

I think the bigger question is WHY are so many women clustered in the lower paying positions while men tend to occupy the higher paying positions.

Niel Degrasse Tyson addressed this question through the filter of his own experience as a young black male pursuing a career in astrophysics against the headwinds of a society that expected something very different from a person like him. Note that his speech here is in response to comments made about "genetic differences" between men and women that allegedly "explain" this very gender gap that we are discussing, which is why I am posting here. I think his experience is probably similar enough to the experiences that women have as to be at least worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=035lOhkNbkM

[portia]

Yes, Tyson is right. It is a basic principle of scientific investigation, and most other types, that to study the effect of a factor (in this case gender discrimination) you need to "control for"--as in eliminate-- other factors that could be involved.

I was also interested in Astrophysics, but I ran into real issues with Math and changed majors. I am aware of many other factors that are not at all "controlled for" that affect female particiation in all sorts of carreers. I do not think we need to list them; anyone with their eyes open knows what they are.

Making sure that females who are in a job category are paid the same as the men in that category is a god beginning, but there are further steps.

[Jnyusa]

That was an entertaining interview, Min. Thanks. (You noticed Richard Dawkins to the right of Tyson, yes?)

Portia, you and I are close in age and it seems we both were drawn to the hard sciences but ended up in a different profession. In my case I have to say that my parents were a persistent discouraging influence. They were afraid I would be unable to find a husband if I went into a man's profession (sic), and the most important job of a woman was to marry well. (What I wanted to be was an archeologist.)

The fact that woman move more slowly up the ladder during child-bearing years will always be an issue. But companies allow family leave to fathers now, so cultural change within the family will change that dynamic too over time. Thing is, cultural change doesn't happen overnight, and those who don't want it to happen will always try to present the status quo as intrinsic and inevitable. But when merit becomes a necessity, reactionary ideas do get scuttled in favor of progress and survival.

[The Heretic]

From Heretic's article:

But the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages — it is 14 cents — but then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers.

It is worth noting that the gap can go in the other direction as well. Heidi Hartman, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, noted that the gap widens to 27.6 cents if part-time workers were included. She also said that in a 2004 survey, IWPR calculated that across 15 years, prime age women earned just 38 percent of what prime age men earned–an apparent wage gap of 62 percent.

I guess i'm missing the part where you caught Obama in a lie.

I doubt you are, but you would have been better off had you attempted this before your fellow traveler, Portia, came in. You see, Portia has declared it as 'lying with statistics'.
(Now, I grant, naturally, your comrade only meant it to be lying when I cite those statistics to show Democrats to be the hypocrites and liars they are, not when leftists use them to advance the cause of empowering the State...).
You might also note that the Fact Check awarded another Pinocchio (and was tempted to add a third) to Obama for the misleading impression and significant omission. Pinocchio is famous for having his nose grow when he lies.
You might also note that Baghdad Carney*, when questioned on the White House paying women less than men says that that statistic is misleading (though it uses the same metrics that Obama's assertion does), because it aggregates all levels.
You might also note that the factcheck notes that the next time Obama talked about the wage gap he left out the statistic. Why would he do that? Because he kept getting called out on his lies and hypocrisy....

How often do you think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters?

That poll means exactly nothing in determining who is lying or what is a lie.

So? I fail to see your point.

======
* Speaking of Carney-barker, gotta love the profile in the Washingtonian, what with the Soviet propaganda posters and photoshopped bookshelves, and what is with that breakfast for four...
(Weren't we subjects to be told by the Obamessiah that we can't eat as much as we want (while he eats kobe beef), and we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees (while the Lightworker cranked up the thermostat cause he likes it warm enough to grow orchids). Oh yeah, that's for the peons, not the ruling elite...).
http://www.washingtonian.com/mom/featur ... ncing-act/

[Minardil]

That was an entertaining interview, Min. Thanks. (You noticed Richard Dawkins to the right of Tyson, yes?)

Portia, you and I are close in age and it seems we both were drawn to the hard sciences but ended up in a different profession. In my case I have to say that my parents were a persistent discouraging influence. They were afraid I would be unable to find a husband if I went into a man's profession (sic), and the most important job of a woman was to marry well. (What I wanted to be was an archeologist.)

The fact that woman move more slowly up the ladder during child-bearing years will always be an issue. But companies allow family leave to fathers now, so cultural change within the family will change that dynamic too over time. Thing is, cultural change doesn't happen overnight, and those who don't want it to happen will always try to present the status quo as intrinsic and inevitable. But when merit becomes a necessity, reactionary ideas do get scuttled in favor of progress and survival.

And that is the point that I believe Dr. Tyson was making, that women and minorities are often discouraged - or outright blocked - by "society" from pursuing certain career paths that would place them more on a par with the average earning power of other demographic groups. So sure, a woman and a man with identical resumes doing identical jobs may well be earning nearly identical salaries, BUT we have a society that still stacks the deck (to some degree, lesser now than in years past I'd think) in favor of the man being able to advance further, faster than the woman. So we get women concentrated in lower paying positions and men concentrated in higher paying positions. Wage parity within positions, gender gap in opportunities for advancement. On a macro level.

[portia]

No Gender Gap in comparable positions is a good start. But we do need to give some thought to why the concentration in lower paying jobs.

I had no discouragement from my family, al all. Possibly some pushing in the other direction (If you had been acquainted with my parents and grandparents, you would know why). But I knew plenty of people who had a hard and fast rule against higher, useful, education for women in their families. All my friends were more or less Feminists and we had a collective fit when the smartest of us (National Merit Scholar) decided to get married and quit her job in a technical field to raise the kids.

But, so many people will not help--even when they can--a girl get a further education, or will start agitating for grandchildren right after she gets married (or before) or doing other things that make it hard to get ahead in a career, but not doing ANY of them with regard to the boys. And, so many women will accept lesser treatment for whatever reason instead of pushing for true equality. I am a little guilty of that.

[Jnyusa]

The other thing I notice among baby boomers is that care of their aging parents fell almost entirely upon the women.

AARP did a study on this ... got to find the reference somewhere as I heard about it through radio discussion ...how Medicare has actually increased the household burden imposed by the elderly by providing these last-ditch life-saving efforts that cause people to live on and on in a permanently disabled condition requiring huge commitments of household resources, while simultaneously refusing to cover any care that takes place in the household. It has been one of the single largest dings to productivity in our economy during the past twenty years or so - women going from full time work to part-time work in order to manage elderly care. I've forgotten the exact number now, but it was huge, something like $30B in lost wages.

[hamlet]

I am breezing in here only for a moment to point out that, while folks like Protia and JNyusa may have faced discouragment in their lives and professions (which is very bad, don't get me wrong), men/boys face something just as bad in many ways. We are trained from childhood that we are expected to be certain things and if we are not, we are unmanly. Try being an administrator/secretary and having a Y chromosome.