Empanada asked:
Given that income and success is largely dependent on unmeasurable qualitative factors (such as charm, luck, looks, etc…), does it necessarily follow that inequality of income is the result of inequality of opportunity? Is it possible that women as a whole simply possess less marketable personal traits (e.g. greater passivity) that would result in their naturally lower pay?
birdman: Out of curiosity, can you cite a reference that quantifies your claim?
Given that income and success is largely dependent on unmeasurable qualitative factors (such as charm, luck, looks, etc…), does it necessarily follow that inequality of income is the result of inequality of opportunity? Is it possible that women as a whole simply possess less marketable personal traits (e.g. greater passivity) that would result in their naturally lower pay?
birdman: Out of curiosity, can you cite a reference that quantifies your claim?
Even the passivity is a manipulated, culturally induced, or trained trait.
Other than physical strength, women are not any less marketable, capable, intelligent or charming compared to men.
My experience as a 60 yr old educated man, who has studied and worked in a variety of schools, occupations, workplaces, and cities, and with different strata of US culture is my reference!
I don’t subscribe to the theory of a wage gap. I’ve never seen anything to suggest a difference in pay when you compare same work circumstances. The gap is only apparent where the man is working more hours, has more experience or acting under hazardous conditions or the conditions are not the same ie. men tend to be in Financial or Engineering fields. Women tend to be in more Public Relations or Administrative fields. a Financial VP earns more than a Public Relations VP, so of course if you don’t account for that, there is going to appear to be a wage gap if do not account for that factor.
I imagine that “unmeasureable qualities” would even out, favouring men in some areas and women in others.
In regards to your primary question. It shouldn’t. I think if you can offer an explanation for choosing one candidate over another, it should be permissable. Resumes are not everything or we would not need interviews. Legally though, is a different story. The law and common sense tend to only cross paths at the most basic.
I don’t believe that. Any working woman worth her salt knows to reserve passivity for outside of work. A quick read through some well-known feminist non-fiction will show incontrovertible evidence of systematic discrimination.
Not understanding or appreciating their own worth (financial) results in women making less. Inability to negotiate effectively is another factor.
I won’t enter into a ‘wage gap’ discussion, but I will say that there is much women can do to lessen that gap…if it exists.
“Out of curiosity, can you cite a reference that quantifies your claim?”
“Marketable personality traits” - like WHAT?