Equality of pay for women

[Palerider]

I think this article speaks volumes about how "Mormon Leadership" have seen women since the beginning. The fact that Utah and Idaho rank so poorly (worst and second worst) while they probably have the largest per capita population of Mormons tells you everything you need to know about how women are truly valued in the LDS community.

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/slidesho ... -smallest/

From the article:

"Not only does Utah have the lowest score in the analysis, it’s also the lowest by an embarrassing margin. The second-lowest-ranked state (Idaho) had a total score of 40.03 points to Utah’s 25.10.

The Beehive State also ranked last for both women’s workplace environment and for their education and health, and only managed to beat out one state, Louisiana, to come in 49th for women’s political empowerment.
That last ranking comes despite the fact that back in 1895, Utah became the second state to allow women to vote."

Speaking of being second to give women the vote, can anyone doubt that the reason the church gave them the vote was because they knew they could control it?

[alas]

I think this article speaks volumes about how "Mormon Leadership" have seen women since the beginning. The fact that Utah and Idaho rank so poorly (worst and second worst) while they probably have the largest per capita population of Mormons tells you everything you need to know about how women are truly valued in the LDS community.

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/slidesho ... -smallest/

From the article:

"Not only does Utah have the lowest score in the analysis, it’s also the lowest by an embarrassing margin. The second-lowest-ranked state (Idaho) had a total score of 40.03 points to Utah’s 25.10.

The Beehive State also ranked last for both women’s workplace environment and for their education and health, and only managed to beat out one state, Louisiana, to come in 49th for women’s political empowerment.
That last ranking comes despite the fact that back in 1895, Utah became the second state to allow women to vote."

Speaking of being second to give women the vote, can anyone doubt that the reason the church gave them the vote was because they knew they could control it?

Yes, Utah brags about how they were the second to give women the right to vote. But they assumed that the women would all obey their husbands and vote to keep polygamy from being outlawed. It was not a matter of respecting the independence of women or respecting women’s rights. It was a matter of getting more total votes, and assuming the women folk would all mind and vote as instructed. Equivalent of slave owners assuming they could order the slaves to all vote to keep slavery.

[Thoughtful]

What do Mormon women get, indeed.

[Hagoth]

They knew how women would vote because they swore an oath before God, angels and witnesses that they would obey their husband at the risk of eternal consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if the secret ballet had a priesthood proctor who verified that the oath was kept.

[1smartdodog]

It is popular talking point about women"s pay. On whole they do make less than men. But it is not always just because they are women. Generally women in the past tend to move in and out of the workplace more because of children. Hence their career paths tend to get interrupted more resulting in lower pay. The same with education. It would take a women longer to achieve a diploma because of children. I am not talking in specifics here but generally.

I am not defending those positions, just acknowledging that they existed in the past. I think things are changing for the better. More women are graduating from college than men now. That is gong to have a significant impact for the future.

I spent 35 years in corporate America in various management positions. Although there was sexism, I never was involved in any conversation that we could pay someone less because they were a women. It was always experience and ability based on who got what.jobs. The pay for the position was the same, there was no scale based on gender. Its just that were fewer women to pick from because of the issues stated,

Do we need to rectify the issues of the past? Sure we do. Have we come along way already? Yes we have. But let's look at what is going to solve the problem instead of just making blanket statements that women make less than men, which tends to imply it is all based in sexism.

[alas]

It is popular talking point about women"s pay. On whole they do make less than men. But it is not always just because they are women. Generally women in the past tend to move in and out of the workplace more because of children. Hence their career paths tend to get interrupted more resulting in lower pay. The same with education. It would take a women longer to achieve a diploma because of children. I am not talking in specifics here but generally.

I am not defending those positions, just acknowledging that they existed in the past. I think things are changing for the better. More women are graduating from college than men now. That is gong to have a significant impact for the future.

I spent 35 years in corporate America in various management positions. Although there was sexism, I never was involved in any conversation that we could pay someone less because they were a women. It was always experience and ability based on who got what.jobs. The pay for the position was the same, there was no scale based on gender. Its just that were fewer women to pick from because of the issues stated,

Do we need to rectify the issues of the past? Sure we do. Have we come along way already? Yes we have. But let's look at what is going to solve the problem instead of just making blanket statements that women make less than men, which tends to imply it is all based in sexism.

Some of it is still based in sexism. Not the open kind you are talking about, but the unconscious kind that people are not even aware they are doing. There are studies that document this kind of sexism, by making up resumes of fictional job applicants. They put the skills and experience equal and then attach either a male name and picture or a female name and picture. So, all things being equal, which applicant was chosen, and the men had an advantage, even though the people doing the evaluating thought they were being totally fair. So, yes, what you say about women interrupting their work history to have children is part of it, but only part. Then there are people who do know that they have a preference for men because they assume no maternity leave or that the man won’t just drop out and have kids or have to care for aging parents. My son was in a meeting where it was openly expressed that they preferred men because men don’t quit to have kids, and someone promptly hushed him by saying we can’t SAY that. My son was furious that the correction was for SAYING it out loud and not for the sexist assumption.

[1smartdodog]

It is popular talking point about women"s pay. On whole they do make less than men. But it is not always just because they are women. Generally women in the past tend to move in and out of the workplace more because of children. Hence their career paths tend to get interrupted more resulting in lower pay. The same with education. It would take a women longer to achieve a diploma because of children. I am not talking in specifics here but generally.

I am not defending those positions, just acknowledging that they existed in the past. I think things are changing for the better. More women are graduating from college than men now. That is gong to have a significant impact for the future.

I spent 35 years in corporate America in various management positions. Although there was sexism, I never was involved in any conversation that we could pay someone less because they were a women. It was always experience and ability based on who got what.jobs. The pay for the position was the same, there was no scale based on gender. Its just that were fewer women to pick from because of the issues stated,

Do we need to rectify the issues of the past? Sure we do. Have we come along way already? Yes we have. But let's look at what is going to solve the problem instead of just making blanket statements that women make less than men, which tends to imply it is all based in sexism.

Some of it is still based in sexism. Not the open kind you are talking about, but the unconscious kind that people are not even aware they are doing. There are studies that document this kind of sexism, by making up resumes of fictional job applicants. They put the skills and experience equal and then attach either a male name and picture or a female name and picture. So, all things being equal, which applicant was chosen, and the men had an advantage, even though the people doing the evaluating thought they were being totally fair. So, yes, what you say about women interrupting their work history to have children is part of it, but only part. Then there are people who do know that they have a preference for men because they assume no maternity leave or that the man won’t just drop out and have kids or have to care for aging parents. My son was in a meeting where it was openly expressed that they preferred men because men don’t quit to have kids, and someone promptly hushed him by saying we can’t SAY that. My son was furious that the correction was for SAYING it out loud and not for the sexist assumption.

Fair enough.

I think maternity leave is a big issue for companies that they are yet to resolve. More than once I had a women go out on maternity leave. It sounds all fine and dandy that some corporate entity will provide maternity leave. In reality most corporations have no mechanism to deal with it. The CEO can say 6 months maternity leave is required, but he or she is not the one dealing with the gap in the workforce. At least on the day to day. Generally what happens is co workers and especially salaried local management have to do the job. That means they all work more for no additional compensation or the duration of the maternity leave.I always knew when a women went out on maternity leave it was going to be a rough 12 weeks. Long days and weekends to keep the boat afloat so to speak.

It is not a simple thing to replace most jobs on a temporary basis. Most workers have a knowledge base that allows them to do their job. To train someone in the short term to do that job is not possible. Hence why coworkers have to do it. So I just like to point out when laws are passed for things like extended leave it is easy to say it is the burden of the corporation, but in reality it is the burden of individuals to compensate.

It is a complicated issue. So I bet many a manager has in the back of their mind the maternity. issue, but mostly because it is going to impact their quality of life, not just because of some profit motive.

Are individuals required to work more to allow others to take extended leave? As a societal issue I would say yes. But speaking from experience it hurts when it is you missing family time so others can have theirs.

[2bizE]

Why does pay have to be equal? The man is the breadwinner so pay should be more for men.
Besides, a women’s place is in the home raising and nurturing children, keeping it clean, and preparing supper for when the man returns from work...said every Mormon leader when I was growing up.

[alas]

It is popular talking point about women"s pay. On whole they do make less than men. But it is not always just because they are women. Generally women in the past tend to move in and out of the workplace more because of children. Hence their career paths tend to get interrupted more resulting in lower pay. The same with education. It would take a women longer to achieve a diploma because of children. I am not talking in specifics here but generally.

I am not defending those positions, just acknowledging that they existed in the past. I think things are changing for the better. More women are graduating from college than men now. That is gong to have a significant impact for the future.

I spent 35 years in corporate America in various management positions. Although there was sexism, I never was involved in any conversation that we could pay someone less because they were a women. It was always experience and ability based on who got what.jobs. The pay for the position was the same, there was no scale based on gender. Its just that were fewer women to pick from because of the issues stated,

Do we need to rectify the issues of the past? Sure we do. Have we come along way already? Yes we have. But let's look at what is going to solve the problem instead of just making blanket statements that women make less than men, which tends to imply it is all based in sexism.

Some of it is still based in sexism. Not the open kind you are talking about, but the unconscious kind that people are not even aware they are doing. There are studies that document this kind of sexism, by making up resumes of fictional job applicants. They put the skills and experience equal and then attach either a male name and picture or a female name and picture. So, all things being equal, which applicant was chosen, and the men had an advantage, even though the people doing the evaluating thought they were being totally fair. So, yes, what you say about women interrupting their work history to have children is part of it, but only part. Then there are people who do know that they have a preference for men because they assume no maternity leave or that the man won’t just drop out and have kids or have to care for aging parents. My son was in a meeting where it was openly expressed that they preferred men because men don’t quit to have kids, and someone promptly hushed him by saying we can’t SAY that. My son was furious that the correction was for SAYING it out loud and not for the sexist assumption.

Fair enough.

I think maternity leave is a big issue for companies that they are yet to resolve. More than once I had a women go out on maternity leave. It sounds all fine and dandy that some corporate entity will provide maternity leave. In reality most corporations have no mechanism to deal with it. The CEO can say 6 months maternity leave is required, but he or she is not the one dealing with the gap in the workforce. At least on the day to day. Generally what happens is co workers and especially salaried local management have to do the job. That means they all work more for no additional compensation or the duration of the maternity leave.I always knew when a women went out on maternity leave it was going to be a rough 12 weeks. Long days and weekends to keep the boat afloat so to speak.

It is not a simple thing to replace most jobs on a temporary basis. Most workers have a knowledge base that allows them to do their job. To train someone in the short term to do that job is not possible. Hence why coworkers have to do it. So I just like to point out when laws are passed for things like extended leave it is easy to say it is the burden of the corporation, but in reality it is the burden of individuals to compensate.

It is a complicated issue. So I bet many a manager has in the back of their mind the maternity. issue, but mostly because it is going to impact their quality of life, not just because of some profit motive.

Are individuals required to work more to allow others to take extended leave? As a societal issue I would say yes. But speaking from experience it hurts when it is you missing family time so others can have theirs.

Oh, I totally agree with you that it is a problem that our society has not resolved. It currently just isn’t fair, either to women if they have to lose their jobs to have children or to the company who has to give them maternity leave.

But if we are going to perpetuate the species, we have to find a way to deal with it. Back when women could not control getting pregnant, society could get away with having women pay the full cost of childbirth and child care. Women simply had no option but to suffer the cost. But now women can choose whether or not to even have children, and if there is nothing in it for the woman, except she gets to pay huge costs of baring and raising children, then women are individually going to decide that the costs are too high and stop having children. Then it won’t be gay marriage that destroys the family. It will be individual women watching out for their own welfare.

As it is, women who stay home like I did for much of my early marriage are at a huge disadvantage if something happens to their husband, divorce or death. At the “height” of my earning career, I was not able to pull in enough to support a family above poverty level if something had happened to my husband. And now, I am retired, but my SS is worth less than getting my SS based on my husband’s earning. And I have a master’s degree. But in retirement, I am no better off than a wife who never worked.

This isn’t a woman’s problem, nor should it get dumped on companies trying to pay employees and run their company. It is a problem society needs to solve.

[moksha]

Does anyone remember that famous work jingle from yesteryear?

Look for the Mormon label
It means she will work for less
Look for the Mormon label
She is willing to be second best!

Ah, nostalgia.

[sunstoned]

Why does pay have to be equal? The man is the breadwinner so pay should be more for men.
Besides, a women’s place is in the home raising and nurturing children, keeping it clean, and preparing supper for when the man returns from work...said every Mormon leader when I was growing up.

I am sure many Mormon leaders still think it.

[alas]

I have never worked a job where women were paid less than men...per hour. In my current job if you arent making $100k you arent applying yourself. Yet I rarely see women volunteer for the overtime that most of the men do. I rarely see women apply for advancement. Some do but most dont. I have seen numerous women get hired and work for a few months and then quit. In my 12 years I have seen three men quit. Its a sucky, hard, dirty, exhausting job. While talking to the manager he said straight up that he wouldnt hire women if he didnt have to because time has shown that most of the women he has hired will go through training, work a few months and then quit. He has invested a lot of money and time training someone who has yet to give anything back to the corporation and then they are gone.

His attitude undoubtedly comes through to the women working for him and they FEEL the hostility and duh of course they quit. Who wants to work for someone who hates you before giving you half a chance. This folks is what you call a self fulfilling prophecy.

[wtfluff]

I have never worked a job where women were paid less than men...per hour. In my current job if you arent making $100k you arent applying yourself. Yet I rarely see women volunteer for the overtime that most of the men do. I rarely see women apply for advancement. Some do but most dont. I have seen numerous women get hired and work for a few months and then quit. In my 12 years I have seen three men quit. Its a sucky, hard, dirty, exhausting job. While talking to the manager he said straight up that he wouldnt hire women if he didnt have to because time has shown that most of the women he has hired will go through training, work a few months and then quit. He has invested a lot of money and time training someone who has yet to give anything back to the corporation and then they are gone.

How many woman managers are there at your work?