Stats Canada for Women Issues a report on Women in Canada
Once again, Stats Canada for women has produced a huge report on the status of women in Canada.
Right now, all I have is their press release...but I definately plan on getting this tome and analyzing it.
It seems clear that the ideological blinkers are on. For instance, the press release says:
The average earnings of employed women are still substantially lower than those of men, even when they are employed on a full-time basis.Ok, but what does this mean? Can age account for much of the difference? We certainly know that wages go up with age. Or, perhaps experience? Couldn't our respected statistical agency actually do some real analysis for a change...instead of implying that there is still huge discrimination in the workplace?
In 2003, women working on a full-time, full-year basis had average earnings of $36,500, or 71% what their male counterparts made.
As well, the gap between the earnings of women and men has not changed substantially in the past decade.
posted by GayandRight @ 8:09 PM
8 Comments:
They still trot out that old canard? the 'percentage of a man's wage'.
Do feminists want the government to force women to not have babies? force women to work the same jobs, same hours as men work? Or perhaps lower men's wages, fire men who happen to have high-paying jobs?
Drastic measures like these would be required to address this 'imbalance', there is no other practical way.
Women's studies and feminists are presently in love with statistics, makes them feel like they're doing something important I guess, but where were they when Sharia Law was being debated in Ontario? Not a peep out of them regarding a system of values that oppresses millions of women around the world. Sorry, feminists don't deserve anyone's respect anymore.
The answer for the wage difference is simple: Women tend to work in lower paying jobs, such as those in the service industry or in relatively entry level positions, at far higher rates than do men. Now WHY this is so is a question that really needs to be addressed.
It's a flawed analysis to simply compare the wages of the two sexes. The people that trot this out simply have an agenda - they're not approaching the issue from an intellectual viewpoint.
Thomas Sowell makes the point that if women still earn 75 cents for every dollar that a man makes, it would make sense for employers to hire exclusively women because the cost of labour would decrease by a quarter. That's obviously not happening, and for good reason ... that statistic is completely misleading.
As previous comments have pointed out, the comparison of wages between men and women is flawed so we can't conclude anything from that. This leaves the statement that the gap hasn't changed substantially in the past decade. What this means to me is that the feminists achieved as much as they can with their old strategy and have been ineffective for at least a decade.
The men may be earning more but who are they spending it on? How about a study on that.
I'm taking part-time courses in business administration at the University of Ottawa. Every class that has a human resource component puts forward similar statistics as proof of social injustice and a workplace that is hostile to women.
In business law, the professor commented that he though employment equity should be absolutely enforced across the entire private sector, in the name of statistical equality.
My HR professor, who was a Phd, said he had an intense and personal interest on the plight of female Canadian workers, particularily executives, who (statistically) languished under a glass ceiling.
All the textbooks that dealt with the subject stated very matter-of-factly it was necessary to combat historical and statistical inequity in the Canadian workplace. I don't think every student was sold on all the ideas but it was obvious if you simply repeated the arguments, you would get a good mark - which is what most of us did.
The over-achievers would present even more radical approaches towards things like forced equity, and their position took on an aura of moral superiority, intelligece and thoughtfulness. Which made it very difficult and intimidating to oppose.
A different study pointed out that it is women who control the vast majority of consumer spending - regardless of who earned the money.
So who is really being taken advantage of here?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home