bauer...please explain you are a bit cryptic.

Laws do not stop people from under valuing themselves.

If you take a job for less you will be under paid.

I know alot of men that are under paid. They wait for raises instead of being proactive and Marketing themselves better and to more places. They stay in jobs longer than they should etc etc

DSBV,

It does not help that the top end is still dominated by old white Men!

Each old white man is matched with privileged old white woman.

I wonder how many kids Oprah and Meg Whitman have?

The headline from Feb 12, WSJ did indeed say that more men lost jobs in the recession. This usually proves the point that women earn less and in this case several others. The first people let go in a recession are those that earn more. The WSJ article (should satisfy the credibility issue for "hard core capitalists") stated that women still earn less than men, ceteris parabus. So that means regardless of education, etc. Except the point of the article was that women in traditional (ie teaching, nursing, social work) are not laid off, but still earning less. Put another way, it still takes a woman an advanced education to earn more than some unskilled laborers for the reasons rightly stated about. The stats came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Additionally, more men have been laid off during this recession. Why? Remember what caused the recession? Housing bubble. More construction than necessary, more construction workers than necessary, more men represented in this industry.

Sorry about the part time argument too. That only adds to the discrepancy. Health care and other benefits drive the wages up even further for men when women work part time. Caring for children creates market inequalities. Even Charles Lindblom, author of The Market System can acknowledge that.

Questions about overall wages, rates per hour, part time v. full time, benefits, types of jobs and cross comparisons of wages in those jobs, total number of said jobs available--all these factors need to be taken into consideration before sound conclusions can be drawn.

The problem with the work less, earn less argument is that women as primary child rearers do quite a bit more work, but their labor is unpaid. Before you say, that's the choice you make, realized that it takes two particular chromosomes to create children but traditionally only one does the majority of the raising. And-poorly raised children (now adults in prisons, mental hospitals and homeless) cost a lot more money to society in the long run.

Just my two cents.

it still takes a woman an advanced education to earn more than some unskilled laborers

It still takes a man an advanced education to earn more than some unskilled laborers too. I know this for a fact being a college graduate in the construction industry. The thing is, a woman doing that unskilled labor job will make just as much as a man.

A major reason for pay discrepancies is the fact that men work the dangerous long hour jobs. These generally don't even require a high school diploma and pay well because of the high risk of death and injury and travel generally required. Also, if a woman takes several months off during a pay raise cycle due to pregnancy she is probably going to get a smaller raise due to the fact she has less to base her performance raise on.

This usually proves the point that women earn less and in this case several others. The first people let go in a recession are those that earn more.

It really wouldn't matter what the report said...there would be justification for claiming victim. That is all it is. All I ever hear from these types of complaints is, "We have to work", "We don't get paid enough," "We have to go to school," "We have to take care of our home," "We have to take responsibility for our children"...for GOD sakes, if society knew how much some women would complain about having choices, we probably wouldn't have spent so much time making sure women had the choice. Men still don't. You want to live? Work. You want a raise? Ask. You want respect? Earn it. You want choice? Take some responsibility for making it.

A woman makes EXACTLY what a man in the same job with the same education makes. Any slight of hand in merging all professions together doesn't change the FACT that those who work in an industry with the same education and same experience get paid the same...REGARDLESS of gender. Any comparison made between a receptionist and a CEO "disparity" of wage is a joke and only used by those who would love to believe that someone else is to blame for their paycheck or lack thereof. Wish I had something so easy to point to as to why I don't make more. The only sexism that exists now is the ability to openly chastise men for having jobs.

Kind of like the young man out of college that doesn't make as much as the woman who has been working in the industry for 10 years. While we may see that as logical...reverse it and suddenly women are being targeted. It sure works for political figures though, male and female alike. Use false analysis to build clever lies, fuel a fever and make half the population victims, and then come in with privileged laws to save them...and presto...re-election.

Frank, "frankly" you're part of the problem. No one is suggesting that you don't do your job and that you should be docked any pay. The point the article is trying to make is that women who perform the same job as men do, the same amount of time is put into that job, yet the women somehow get shortchanged. No one is screaming about maternity leave except you and trust me, if men were the ones who had to be screaming during the maternity "labor" process, you'd appreciate women more.

So, shove it Frank because not only did I work the required 37 and half hours a week, plus overtime every week, but I went home and cooked dinner, washed clothes, helped my son with homework, saw that he had a bath and was in bed by a certain time. I did all of this while my husband sat his lazy ass down and watched "wrestling." Lastly, Frank..I had my son between jobs, so I never took maternity leave, thank you very much!!!

Women, if you have a lazy ass husband, be sure to work full-time and bring home your own bacon, that way you can divorce his lazy ass like I did and make it on your own. I am a firm believer in women working and being able to take care of themselves. You do it everyday for some no-good piece of $#!+ of a man, so do it for yourselves and leave those worthless men to wonder what the hell happened?? Because, trust me...they are clueless when you leave and no, I'm not some bitter divorced woman as I divorced him and it is so wonderful to come home after work to an orderly home, no one yelling about dinner or where are their socks, etc. Oh, what blessed peace!!!

Isabella, Unfortunately your story is rather normal in this world. I prefer the extraordinary man who understands work life balance and accomplishes both with grace. There are some stellar men in this world who actually contribute in a well rounded way. Here is wishing you reach your heights and find there is a good man to appreciate all you have, if that is what you want some day.

What I think though that Frank does not seem to acknowledge or "frankly :)" understand, which would eliminate him from being in a position of authority, is where he may very well work longer hours his female counterpart probably works smarter and multi-tasks. So where his job may very well take him 50 hours to accomplish a good woman can actually do it within the time allotted and not cost the company overtime. In that instance she would be promotable well above his pay grade at some point. He might just be bitter.

Glad to see I got some people to stand up and take notice. Of course, I don't appreciate Isabella's tone - there's no real need for that - but even if I take her at face value, it doesn't close the gap here. Yes, sorry to say, this is the all "all things being equal" argument again. As a professional male and sr. executive at a fortune 500 company, I've seen firsthand what causes much of this gap. And it's exactly what I said it is. Different priorities, gaps in employment, and things that interrupt the productivity of those affected. The truth is that at every company I've ever worked for - including my current one which has a female CEO - women who do the work the same as the men, get the money the same as men. It's not until you factor in women who leave the workforce periodically, or who prioritize things like important family obligations over work, do you start to see the gap. And the analysis is flawed because of that. Zoom in a little, folks. Look at a man and a woman with the same education, same skills, same responsibilities, same length of service, and same amount of productivity, and the "gap" disappears. That's not magic - it's a simple byproduct of comparing apples to apples.

So, directly back to Isabella I say: you obviously didn't understand the article. It highlights the cost of working part time, balancing family and work, etc., as the true struggles which are key to this disparity. There may also be some discriminatory/illegal behaviors at play, but nowhere does it argue that women in the examples are running in lockstep with the men whose salaries they believe they deserve. It says the exact opposite -- which supports my original comment.

Frank the fact that you are part of a fortune 500 is a bit scary. Although, I agree in part particularly in large companies where men and women are competing from the same base, it has been my experience, that they are paid competitively and competitive women are give a slight advantage at advancement opportunities. Not so much in small companies as women do seem to have to work harder to even maintain their position. I live in a right to work state so Unions do not factor.

What I find curious, is many larger firms in the US will reciprocate with men being able to take time for maternity leave. When my children were born my husband did take time( 1 week first birth). The second time around he took the entire allotment as the birth was not optimal and I was restricted for a time. Gotta love the large companies that will offer this option along with insurance that allows for home help.

Many large firms also preach work/life balance as a health aspect for the benefits it offers employees. Encouraging employees to take comp time for business travel, require them to their vacation and to participate in aspects of life that are not directly related to the income of a career be it sports and activity or volunteering in their communities etc. These efforts have actually proven to increase productivity across the board.

txmom, why would you say this: "Frank the fact that you are part of a fortune 500 is a bit scary."? Why would you make such a personal attack? Do you know me? Do you know anything about me? What kind of person makes nasty little comments like that?

For the record: I'm a professional male with a loving family, and a long, distinguished career. And I didn't get where I am by accident. I am successful by design, and have a professional lifetime of experience that qualifies me to speak on this topic. I'm a living witness to both equality and inequality in action, including the many factors that come into play when you decide how much to pay somebody, or how to evaluate the quality and productivity of a given employee's work. But I don't attack people personally for disagreeing with me, or for arguing a point that's open for debate. If you disagree, fine. If you can prove me wrong, than prove it. But in all cases, I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the sarcastic personal comments.

Frank that is the exact reason why people are willing to earn less.

"if you work less, you should earn less, regardless of your sex or status"

Bottom line is always bottom line.

How much do you make the owner of the business? if you make less money you should get paid less. Putiing in your time does not make money. that is why people who do not make money are paid by the hour.

I have to agree with the personal comments thing - if you can't comment in a positive way, what do you possibly gain by being obnoxious? All you do is invalidate the point(s) you're trying to make, and you won't be taken seriously.

As to the points made: 1) Maternity leave is, on average, 6 weeks. FMLA is obviously longer. so, YES, it is a considerable amount of time to a woman to be out of work. In her absence, her job still has to be done, which means additional expense and/or time for her employer and co-workers to work around the fact that there is an interruption in how her work is being done. 2) Women who have had babies and then have returned to work have a new priority - AS IT SHOULD BE. They are focused on family, not employer. There are probably very few new moms who work 12-15 hour days - and NO, I'm not talking about what they do at home - we are talking about the workplace and the workplace ONLY. (That one was for Isabella - please focus on the issue being discussed.)

As far a woman being able to multitask better than a man...really, txmom, unless or until you have scientific evidence to back that one up, please refrain from guessing what kind of worker {frank} is.

Ultimately, you cannot compare each aspect of any given woman to any given man in a particular job. Years of experience, time worked, job performance, willingness and ability to go above and beyond what the job requires, and even more criteria are needed to get an "apples to apples" comparison. So for "Studies" to even be conducted, there is an innate bias that comes out in the results. They are completely invalid, because there is no one on the planet that can walk even a foot in someone else's shoes.

Again many of you are trying to use experiential knowledge in place of real facts. Nearly all of the studies in these areas figure in all that you are talking about. Women may have a tendency to slow up, a bit, for the mommy years(about 5 years on average). However their production in the long run increases far above their male counter parts. Most men have substantial slow downs in the second halves of their careers.

When you look at industries like banking and academia where productivity can be measured fairly easy. Women are out performing men in the same jobs and not only getting paid less but being promoted far less. Most of the interviews done with those in the hiring positions in these field tell us that men will hire other men even before women who may out perform them because they feel the men will "fit in" better with the upper levels(Men).

So while many men are working extremely hard and deserve every dime they are earning and often more, many more women are being short changed than men.

Isabella-1133504 wrote "Women, if you have a lazy ass husband, be sure to work full-time and bring home your own bacon, that way you can divorce his lazy ass like I did and make it on your own."

Hey guys, watch out for these opportunists. They are smart and have figured out how to secure two decades of child support payments (alimony in disguise), steal the majority of assets, strip you of your children and leave the husband with all of the debt. Above is the mantra for the divorce culture and an excellent example of why men should be more careful in choosing marriage.

If you find you're "dragging your feet" with regard to marriage, your reasoning is sound. The deal is not good. Half of the men end up with women that become the above in only a few years.

Not only that. Any sons raised in that household will be taught that they are not needed or wanted.

spg64-1292127 wrote "When you look at industries like banking and academia where productivity can be measured fairly easy."

You're making that up. Have you actually looked at this? Women in academia publish far fewer papers than their male counterparts at the identical pay rate. They blame additional hours needed in the home.

I'm sorry SPG, but I disagree with your assertion that these studies are conducted properly. Most popularly published studies are inherently flawed -- they are biased, omit information that disproves them, and sensationalized to draw people in. And the use of statistical sampling and grouping is one of the biggest factors in misleading the public about the causes and facts of the disparity. What's more, ignoring the actual workplace experiences of people involved in the debate is exactly what shouldn't be done. Here are some facts for you: I have worked for more women than men in my career; as a manager, my highest paid employees have been women on four of the seven teams I managed; my lowest paid employees have always been the lowest performers, and sadly, the women outnumber the men there about 3-2. You shouldn't simply disregard that data because it isn't convenient. Nor should you point at my experience and say, "Well, your experience is atypical." Let me state it in a different way - in an office where I work for a woman, and my top performers are women, and and in my bottom performers, women outnumber men about 3-2, then something about all those woman is unequal. In my experience, the inequality exists because of different priorities, less time dedicated to work, more time away from work, larger gaps in employment, different credentials, different work ethics, drive, etc. Finally, if you go back to the source study, it highlights the very lapses in work time/productivity that we're referring to anecdotally as having a big impact. So you're not just debating me, you're debating the findings of the study itself.

My apologies frank, if you were offended. Let me explain my train of thought. Along with the other aspects of substance I mentioned that you did not address:

Your initial statement seemed combative and overshadowed a work ethic that could be a serious negative to those you supervise, as a Sr. Manger. Even those content working structured or hourly position because they are aware of a split responsibility between work and home, might feel inadvertently threatened by you. This could easily translate to men or fathers as well as women and mothers.

I would be leery of working for any SR manager who did not take advantage of those elements of employment they earned. I would have a problem managing an employee who did not value the benefits they earned. Vacation time is an earned income. Would you not take action on stock options? Would you decline a pension? Managers who do not aptly appreciate all aspects of their own income are likely to impose or measure their employees by the same standards, which through employee evaluation, could reflect poorly on the employee and inadvertently require them to make an unnatural choice. Give up a portion of what they earned to satisfy a superior? That can translate into serious subliminal suggestion. One downside is, specifically when it comes to vacation, holding that unpaid benefit on the books of a company, particularly a large company, it is a negative on the corporate balance sheet. But then as a sr. executive you know and understand that and one would hope you would not hold it against any employee who would purposefully, to garner your favor, neglect collecting what they have earned honestly.

Much of the cost of maternity leave is rolled into long term or short term disability costs. As companies typically pay these costs for employees that could actually explain a reasonable discrepancy in the salary or rate of employment between men and women. It is also likely to cause a hardship on the manager or department of the employee on leave, but that hardship could as easily albeit not as likely for a male in an accident or suffering illness. Again, family leave, in many instances, can be offered to a male as well as female without threat of loosing one's job. However, because of the stigma of attitude that it is not the "mans" place to offer infant care to a child it becomes a difficult decision for men to take the opportunity if they fear retribution from a supervisor. So men, even though they may wish to share that task, are less likely to assert themselves. The odd exception would be if the Mother made a larger salary than the father and taking the reduced pay on her end was a financial hardship. In that case the man can just suck it up and take the performance review hit from the boss.

Trangaleeloo....

I have to agree with the personal comments thing - if you can't comment in a positive way, what do you possibly gain by being obnoxious? All you do is invalidate the point(s) you're trying to make, and you won't be taken seriously.

There are probably very few new moms who work 12-15 hour days - and NO, I'm not talking about what they do at home - we are talking about the workplace and the workplace ONLY. (That one was for Isabella - please focus on the issue being discussed.)

You sure showed me with the: if you can't comment in a positive way, what do you possibly gain by being obnoxious? All you do is invalidate the point(s) you're trying to make, and you won't be taken seriously.

As far a woman being able to multitask better than a man...really, txmom, unless or until you have scientific evidence to back that one up, please refrain from guessing what kind of worker {frank} is.

Scientific evidence that women are better multitaskers than men?

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_older_you_are_the_better_you_multitask_if_female.php

http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/815.php

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICNC.2009.542

And this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

So for "Studies" to even be conducted, there is an innate bias that comes out in the results. They are completely invalid, because there is no one on the planet that can walk even a foot in someone else's shoes.

I suppose you view the above studies in the same light, oh well. To give frank the sr. manager the benefit of the doubt I did explain myself.

txmom, thank you for your change of tone and apology.

Let me just say this: we live in a capitalistic society with high unemployment, and a glut of extra workers scrambling for a paucity of new jobs. That's a harsh reality. It would be great if we could celebrate those who understand work/life balance a little more, and if we could all take vacation time and personal time and family time whenever we need it. But how we respond to those desires/needs in this environment has a tangible effect on our salaries and our very existence in our jobs. The truth is, workers of the current generation are one of the first generations who are unwilling to sacrifice to get what they want. In the early 1900's, people started working at age 12, worked 7 days a week, 12 hours a day for low pay and with very little job protection (and often poor safety to guard life and limb). Farmers still work long days to eke out what is often a miserable existence. But today's office workers and their ilk are a completely different breed. And they really do seem to believe that it's okay to work less -- for whatever reason -- and still demand pay equality. But I don't think that would even fly in a Utopian society. In today's real work world, I can't afford to relax at the expense of my job; nor do I have the luxury of letting my employees carry a smaller share of the work without financial consequence. And since most companies document things like productivity, billable hours, quality of work, and such, the decision on how much to pay you at raise time -- or any time -- are based on tangible, measurable items. I can't see my way clear to ignoring that -- it would mean devaluing the hardest workers, and overvaluing the poorest workers. I don't mean to sound preachy or overbearing, but that isn't the way of business, and it should never be.

Bottom line. If you come to work and do the job as well as the person next to you, you will probably make the same money. If you don't, you won't, and absolutely shouldn't.

As far as the studies you cite, if you look at my previous response, you'll see that I don't put much credence into those kind of popular studies. They are too often like the Nielsen ratings, exit polls, and telephone surveys, and too often driven by people with agendas. And it's difficult for me to put more faith in someone else's study or poll than I put in my own experience. And not to put too fine a point on it, people tend to gravitate most to the studies that confirm what they already believe. So that makes people who point to the studies almost as suspect as the studies themselves. And to be honest, studies are a lot like internet reviews of retail products. Over time, you'll find that roughly half the users think it's the best product ever, and half the users think it's the worst product ever. Look long enough, and without bias, and I'll wager even-money you can find at least as many studies that agree with my perspective that agree with yours.

To Frank...I am a single mother of two teenagers. I am also a project manager for a medium sized, multi-million dollar company. I work, on average 55+ hours a week. That is just at my job. Then I have the kids, meals, chores, pets...the list goes on and on. I do not take vacations, rarely even take a lunch break and I do not smoke. I even work weekends to stay caught up and not get behind. I bust my ass in my job and I am VERY good at it. However, I am severely underpaid compared to other men in the company doing the same thing. It's a "good old boy" system. I do not complain, I just maintain my work ethic and keep doing what it takes to get the job done. I keep hoping my efforts will be recognized and things will change. But it has been 4 years and it has not changed. I have always received the highest marks on my reviews and am complimented regularly on my outstanding work. And yet, the guy in the office next door...he gets paid about 25K more than me, he has the same education that I do, has been here less than me, works less hours then I do, has a wife who takes care of his kids and house and he spends at least two hours a day yapping with friends and other coworkers. So, what can I do? set boundaries? work less? risk what I have now? Unfortunately, I cannot gamble with my job since there is not a lot out there these days. I want it more than the guy next door, I work harder for it and still see no rewards.

ma8802, you sound like exactly the kind of person and worker I would be honored to have on my team. And to answer your question: no, you can't pull back, set more boundaries, etc., because it will only hurt you more. Like I said above, the job market is too harsh right now, and there are too many people scrambling to take your job from you. That said, you are in a terrible situation, and one that sounds like it's borne out of REAL discrimination. I won't opine on how to fix it, because I don't know, but I will say this: you have been counted as a statistic with women you do not truly represent. And as long as that's the case, your problem isn't likely to be solved by any study or lively debate on Newsvine. It's the problem with statistical grouping and sampling -- and the entire flawed process behind these studies that I've been complaining about -- that make the real victims of discrimination so hard to help. You can't be seen because you're grouped with people who match the description that I and many other posters on this article have mentioned. And as long as people refuse to acknowledge how much of this problem is caused by the choices many women make for themselves, there is no easy way to separate you from the flock and deal with the real issue.

On a side note -- you DO have options. All of them are scary, bitter, potentially destructive to your finances and your lifestyle, but there are options. Ultimately, only you can decide which option is best for you. The only choice I wouldn't endorse is standing by and waiting for a survey or social movement to fix the problem.

frank - you make very valid and legitimate points. I appreciate you seeing things the way you do and understanding my situation. Believe me - I know that no one can change my situation but me. It is my goal to go back to school and change careers after my kids are off to college. But for now I work to find gratitude in what I do have, that I am able to provide for my children. I can bring home the bacon and cook it up in a pan!!! :-)

frank...first to get the points we agree upon out of the way. Agree we are a very capitalistic society which I happen to appreciate. In my opinion it is the bastardizations of those principals that have brought us to this current economic cycle. The balance must be restored or the house of cards falls.But honestly that is neither here nor there with regard to the discussion of women earning less.

I agree with your estimation of the 1900's and the massive need for unskilled labor within the manufacturing mecca we had going on in America. Those hardships still represent many of the mega companies that are a force to be reckoned with in the Untied States although the mid and small manufacturers are failing. No argument with the farmers either although the smaller farmers are learning to adapt and may make a resurgence along with a fair standard of living. Again not really pertinent to the discussion of women earning less in the workplace.

I agree that workers in the current generation have no concept of sacrifice for gain. Again, I think that is a rather generic estimation.

What I disagree with is the idea that as a Sr Manager you would consider it a strength of an employee to forgo claiming compensation agreed upon between the employer and employee as a condition of employment. Again, would you ignore your stock options or pension? You also risk loosing a seasoned and exceptional employee to a competitor who will approach their base with a reward rather than penalty consequence. Again not completely tied to women earning less money.

As for the studies cited...Trangaleeloo asked for studies and scientific evidence. I did my best for a brief web search. I also agree that scientific data can be manipulated to ones beliefs.

As for that topic...It has been my experience that women are more inclined to multitask where men are more apt to delegate. As we still have a fairly male centric management force in this world it seems the ability to delegate wisely is still more valued than multitasking. Just my observation.

ma8802...If your schedule allows send out your resume, preferably to a larger companies or a competitor. Hopefully someone will recognize your talents and help you to a more financially satisfying career. Then your current employer can kick themselves when they realize it takes two people to replace you.

Sorry txmom, but you're putting words in my mouth:

What I disagree with is the idea that as a Sr Manager you would consider it a strength of an employee to forgo claiming compensation agreed upon between the employer and employee as a condition of employment. Again, would you ignore your stock options or pension?

I never said anything like this. What I said was that, especially in this climate, we can't always get everything we want or are entitled to, or think we are entitled to. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, you promised me vacation time and I'm going to take it." But if it has a negative impact on the company, or your project, or your team -- and if it has a negative financial impact -- I'm not going to reward you for it. I'm going to reward the employee who says "I'm going to skip this day off so we meet our deadline." That's the employee who is loyal and productive, and the one who helps me stay in business next year. Your vacation may be great for you, but when your coworkers and company are struggling with a poor economy and a shrinking workforce, you heaped a lot of extra work on everyone else. And guess what? Your boss will remember that come raise time. So it's great that you want what you've been promised, but nothing comes free -- even free stuff has a price.

That said, it's pretty far off topic. We're not really talking about occassional vacations. We're talking, for example, about a woman who takes three 13 week maternity leaves to have three kids in 5 years. By my count, that woman worked 3/4 of a year less than her coworkers in that same period of time. Why should her pay stay in sync with theirs over that period? They worked -- probably even harder to cover for her -- and gained more knowledge, improved their skills, completed new tasks. She stayed home. In your way of thinking, none of that should account for them getting more money at raise time. I can see the principle you're trying to defend, but it doesn't work in practice. It never has, and I doubt it ever will. The clock doesn't stop. Business doesn't stop. Only the person who fell out of the workforce for a while stopped. And no matter how good the employee is, she still disrupted our business and lost time on the job. I said it earlier and I'll repeat it here. In order for things to be equal, things have to be EQUAL. That means you're on the job as much as the next guy, doing what he does, as long as he does, as well as he does. That is the key to pay equality. Not social movements, not complaints. In fact, that's the key to all kinds of equality. If you want what someone else gets, do what they do to get it. Don't do something else, then try to prove it's equally deserving of the same reward. It may be something spectacular, but by doing something different, you should expect something different. The best comparison remains apples to apples.

You're exactly right Frank. If women with children earned less for reasons OTHER than producing less the "laws" referred to in this article would be the basis for endless litigation on this matter especially class action suits. But even with the laws in place, you can't legally force employers to give the same pay to less experienced and less productive employees even if those employees have a vagina.

OK it was an earlier question unanswered. I agree with you assessment...It would be poor planning for the person scheduled to go to a trade show to plan a vacation that was in conflict. But most reasonable employees would schedule to accommodate their work schedules, deadlines and company need. But, vacation is not free stuff. It is time that is paid in arrears.

Why should her pay stay in sync with theirs over that period? They worked -- probably even harder to cover for her -- and gained more knowledge, improved their skills, completed new tasks. She stayed home. In your way of thinking, none of that should account for them getting more money at raise time.

That is not what I said at all. If she is off for a good portion (3 Months) of the evaluation period she would not be judged at as high a rating for the very reasons you mentioned. I would not expect her to receive a raise for that evaluation period at all. I don't think any competitive woman in the workforce would expect to receive a raise or bonus when they were on maternity leave, in the US anyway. There should be credit given to the company that there is a job to go back to after leave is over. Sadly, there are women who will not tell their employer that they don't plan to return until they have been paid out for leave, I think that is a cheep shot to the employer. I think that also shows in work habits and attitude.

By your logic if you top seller has a heart attack and is out of the office for bi-pass surgery, loosing several weeks of work and creating a void, you could without conscience re allocate his accounts and if he returns he can start from square one. I find that unappealing from a business standpoint. You risk to loose a top performer to a competitor because the moment in time was more important than the big picture.

txmom, you put an interesting spin on everything when you respond to me:

By your logic if you top seller has a heart attack and is out of the office for bi-pass surgery, loosing several weeks of work and creating a void, you could without conscience re allocate his accounts and if he returns he can start from square one. I find that unappealing from a business standpoint. You risk to loose a top performer to a competitor because the moment in time was more important than the big picture.

We're talking about what causes salary disparity, not anything about starting at square one, or doing other unconscionable things. This discussion -- my perspective, as well as that of many others' -- is about ongoing behaviors and decisions that rightly factor into this pay-gender gap. There's a difference between having family priorities, maternity leaves, and other life choices that feed into the gap, and a having an heart attack.

Let me try it this way: Employers pay for actual work, actual attendance, actual skill, actual productivity, etc. Employers may cut someone a little slack for extraordinary circumstances, but business is business. It has its own rules, ethics, and ways. When we join the club of workers, we agree to play by its rules. Businesses are not required to be nice, kind, and thoughtful, or behave in ways that are religiously moral. They are required to follow the letter of the law, and treat discrimination -- REAL discrimination -- with an iron fist. So if you want to fix the pay inequity problem, go back to the thing I keep saying in my posts: do what the workers you're comparing yourself to are doing. You only have the right to complain if you can prove that you and he are in lockstep (equally skilled, equally productive, equally dedicated, equally PRESENT) and you are STILL being paid unfairly.

Blowsworth,

You are absolutely wrong! Women in Academia may have periods where they are not as productive but long run they are more productive than their male counter parts. They bring in more grant money, publish more and carry far larger teaching and committee loads. They are payed on average 74% of what their male counter parts make.

Here is a story for you. In our department two young professors both hired within 6 months of each other. One Male, one female the female has performed off the charts in the first 5 years(while having two children by the way). She is ranked in the top 30 for grant money in the entire University(45,000 students). She has published 34 papers since arriving. She is seen as the junior faculty so she has more comittee assignments than anyone else in the department. She has already placed two students in extremely prestigious Post Docs and one other in a very good post doctoral position. She has placed 4 masters students in other PhD positions around the world. Her male counter part, has yet to win a competitive grant. He has 5 papers in review with 3 published. He has graduated 4 masters students who have all been employed at various Government agencies.

When it was exposed in a University equity study that the male was making 27% more than his female counter part even though their records were not even close our deans response( in a closed committee meeting) was "well he has a family to support." This is a women who has done everything right. She has a spouse that works evenings so that one of them is almost always with their children. She has jumped threw all of the BS hoops and out performs not just her counterpart but nearly everyone in the college, yet she makes $27,000 less than a male professor in the same level as she. This is the reality! The good old boy network is alive and well and until some of us guys start to call it BS it will remain.

Frank,

I am not referring to "popularly" published studies. I am referring to scientific studies done academic statisticians. Equity pay and full strata promotions in the work place is a problem still today. The facts do not lie.

spq, I agree that facts don't lie, even though studies and researchers often misrepresent them. But if you're think I'm arguing that there's not a pay equality issue here, you're wrong. Of course there is. But it's not a simple matter of sexual discrimination, which is the way your points come across -- like there's a grand global conspiracy of men trying to keep women's wages down. As someone who wants to talk facts, I fully expect you on my side of this argument. Because, in fact, a majority of the pay gap seen today is caused by the choices of the women suffering from it, and the outward ripples of those choices. Sadly, as with ma8802, real cases of discrimination are lost in the noise of the false discrimination claims that these studies basically reveal. Let's look back at the text of the article:

The persistent imbalance in household chores can hurt women's careers, the study of the International Trade Union Confederation concluded. Women with kids earn on average 68 percent of what men make, and overall, women make 74 percent of what men bring in, according to the report.

...

The study said that women with kids more often work part-time than men or women without children, indicating it is hard to combine careers with the demands of a family.

The study itself is owing much of the disparity -- albeit tactfully -- to choices that place women's family obligations above work. So let's not pretend that it says something different.

And once again let me say: If you want equal pay, do equal work -- and equal means equal in every facet. Then we can look for the places where true inequality exists, and fix it for the women who aren't getting what they deserve.

spg64-1292127 wrote "You are absolutely wrong! Women in Academia may have periods where they are not as productive but long run they are more productive than their male counter parts."
Surely, this is the case in women's studies. Those professors are better than newspaper printing presses at producing the most reams of unintelligible ink on paper in all of recorded history.

This is an interesting discussion that two or three of you have been having here. Just wanted to add my two cents. The only way for it to really be equal is for men to take an equal burden at home, too. The problem is that right now women have too much work dumped on them. It's just impossible for them to perform the same as a man, when they have so much to do at home as well, not to mention the maternity leave on top of it.

Unfortunately that's not going to happen while women are the ones making less. It just doesn't make sense for the man to risk sacrificing his job while his wife is making less. But what that means is, it's going to be impossible for his wife to ever get ahead. And that's what women are facing today. I'm not suggesting a solution, I'm just trying to outline the actual problem.

Not to mention that in smaller companies, women actually do tend to make less. One of my friends is a single woman in her 40s, never had kids, and she's a workaholic. She is making 30k less than the other person in her company with her same job (a man). She was told by the owner of the company that men need to make more because they have families. Well, the other guy with her same job is single without kids, same as her. So how does that make sense? They get around the discrimination laws by calling the positions two different things, so they can assign different salaries to them. The only way she'd be able to report it is by documenting everything over a few years, but she's not litigious enough to do that.

Anyway, the net is that there are situations where women make less just because they're women. Also, since women tend to make less, they are more likely to be the ones to stay home, and end up even further behind their male counterparts. So Frank, your statement that we don't need social movements to change this is incorrect, I believe. Because it's the structure of our society right now that means it's extremely difficult for women to ever get ahead, if they want to have a family as well. Women have to make a choice between family and career that men don't, and that's not equality.

Canadian, you make some valid points. But I didn't say that we don't need social movements - I said it was unwise to WAIT for a social movement to fix the problem. That's an important distinction I think you overlooked. And I've already acknowledged that discrimination exists, but that it is hard to combat when you introduce factors that aren't discriminatory into the mix and paint them all with the same brush. And whether you agree with it or not, different job titles are not just a clever way to get around pay laws -- and it's not up to the employee to decide that his or her job title should actually be different than it is. That's kind of like saying that someone with a MASTERS degree basically has the same degree as someone with a PHD because they happen to be doing the same job. There's similar, and then there's same. In arguments about equality, these minor semantic arguments count -- even if they are terrible and further the goals of the "bad guys." If you want to argue pay inequity, at the bare minimum, you need to be in the same job.

Next, I'd like to take issue with your comments about how women are forced to make choices that men don't when it comes to family care -- but I can't. It's a true statement. But it's true because that's how we've structured our society, and we're still mid-evolution on that. There are many inequities in family planning and choices -- mothers are given preferential treatment in divorce/custody cases; women get final say on abortion issues, with very little intention to give fathers a voice or choice in the process. So if you expand this argument naturally, you'll find that sexual inequity exists across the spectrum. That said, the burden falls more heavily on women in line with the way mothers/women are valued in the parenting process. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. And biology dictates that men can't have children. That means that men and women face very different choices and challenges -- one outcome of which is that a pay inequity continues to exist.

One other thing -- work is basically meritocracy. It's easy to sit back and say women do as much but get paid less, especially without doing any in-depth research. I don't know your friend, but I'm willing to bet that there are a lot more things factoring into most affected women's pay situations than you realize. It's easy to jump on the discrimination bandwagon -- easy to take a woman's word that her work is is as good as her male counterpart's, and the job title distinction doesn't matter, and that she's just as efficient, productive, etc., but in order for that to be overwhelmingly true, it would have to mean that the majority of us -- including you -- are all biased and perpetuating the discrimination that fuels the salary gap. It requires an overwhelming amount of chauvinism in the male leadership, and active complicity in the female leadership. In my experience, that level of "conspiracy" just doesn't exist. Usually, there are a few bad eggs whose stories catch our ears, and we extend those experiences to include everyone. But there's not a huge, deliberate movement to keep women down (that includes all the successful women in the world, who, by this example, do not desire company or a change in the female condition).

A Canadian-917090 wrote "It just doesn't make sense for the man to risk sacrificing his job while his wife is making less. But what that means is, it's going to be impossible for his wife to ever get ahead."

A solution to this is for women to select men with lesser incomes, educations and ages. Wouldn't that be an "englightened" attitude?

SPG-This is the reality!

Actually, your personal anecdote is the exception to the reality. The university has opened itself to a lawsuit for pay discrepancy...or even worse, the woman could leave the faculty and go somewhere else, bringing all her abilities with her...leaving the university with their overpaid employee.

That is why it doesn't pass the "smell" test. Most cases are garbage excuses for not taking responsibility for choices, and then the majority use exceptions like this to "prove" their point. In your exception to the rule, whether it was a woman or a man, or an Asian, or a Catholic...the organization should and will be held accountable.

And I realize you are probably stating facts, but remember, it is very easy to come up with a personal parable to prove a point. Please review the following report done for the Department of Labor at the beginning of last year. If you find yourself looking for reasons to disagree...remember, it is 50 research studies all put together. Legitimate studies analyzed by a neutral organization for the government. I'm sure it more accurately depicts the reality of the situation than one's personal experience with a specific case. A boring read for sure, but it is REAL research. As vanilla as it comes. And as honest as it comes. So don't buy the propaganda. Look into it. And if you really are interested in the truth, then at the VERY LEAST, take some time and read the following...

http://consad.com/index.php?page=an-analysis-of-reasons-for-the-disparity-in-wages-between-men-and-women

Justice,

Come on, a report put together by the US Chamber of Commerce, is your source!

Do better than that!

And yes that Female will leave the University. She will move her family somewhere else so she can make what she is worth. The point is that if she was a male she would not have to.

Do better than that!

What would you like? Pictures of the people doing the research?

It was the Consad Research Corporation with the report going to the US Department of Labor. It doesn't get any more real than that. I KNOW it doesn't report what you want, but the facts are the facts. What I'm saying is the THEORY women get paid less than men is hogwash. It doesn't happen.

She will move her family somewhere else so she can make what she is worth. The point is that if she was a male she would not have to.

In your story, it sounds like you heard it second-hand. If the woman did have this happen as you say, and it is not just a story made up to make it sound good, then she can sue and stay right where she is, with her family, and her husband can keep his job too. All a happy little family. Now if she did something to warrant the situation, and she didn't tell you about it, then she doesn't have a leg to sue on. But seriously, it would be the exact same regardless of the gender. So you give me a story that you want to use as your fact, that you don't even know for SURE if it is completely true yourself, and when I give you researched FACT and a link to it, you want more. NICE! You're not to big on equality there are you? Anything that pushes women as victims (including a hopefully true story of one woman) is fact to you, and anything that says they're not (including thousands in a research study, analyzed by professionals and turned over to the government for historical archives) should be tossed because it didn't agree with your made up hypothesis.

Yes - You can fool yourself, you can cheat until you're blind. But, it will never change the facts. You have to intentionally throw them away in order to somehow try to make what you believe tie into your own reality. Simple psychology really.

The hysterical thing is that you commented back to Frank earlier:

I am not referring to "popularly" published studies. I am referring to scientific studies done academic statisticians. Equity pay and full strata promotions in the work place is a problem still today. The facts do not lie.

So what do you want SPG? Published study by a national research organization put out for the US Government or popularly published studies...or by scientific study do you mean only those that support SPG's point of view?

The only way for it to really be equal is for men to take an equal burden at home, too.

Canadien...I'd like to offer help to you and ANY woman reading this...it is a simple scenario that so many people seem to forget...only 50% of the men are married, in committed relationships. Single men perform the EXACT same tasks at home as single women, and yet 50% of men get NO credit for it...mostly because there is not a woman there keeping score. Yep, they make their meals, yep, they do their dishes, yep, they do the laundry, yep, they clean their houses. It is apparent that if you've ever been in a relationship, the woman makes a CHOICE to take on the certain tasks. Whoever has the lowest tolerance for a particular activity not being done takes on that responsibility. This is why more men change the oil in the family car, fix up the house, take care of the clogged drain, put the kid's new bike together, etc., etc. Women, in general have a high tolerance for allowing those things to be put off until tomorrow. Men on the other hand seem to have a higher tolerance for doing the dishes in the morning, cleaning the house when it looks dirty, washing their clothes when they need them...but they WILL do it! If my girlfriend madesthe choice to wash the dishes right after dinner every night and then complain that I don't help, I tell her to STOP washing them. I will get to them, just as I did before we were together.

Not liking WHEN someone else does things and choosing to do them yourself is NOT the same as being FORCED to do them. Again, the work in the home, in MOST cases, boils down to choices that are made by EITHER gender. One can FORCE their timing on someone else and then complain that they don't help when they don't follow your orders. It is all twists and turns on how much overworked and underpaid we ALL are. To separate it ONLY to women is a defeatist attitude, selfish, and doesn't really take the time to review available facts. It's poor me, poor me, poor me...I get to make choices and it affects me...poor me, poor me, poor me. Why don't we just make laws that if a man and a woman are in a relationship, the man MUST do everything a woman tells him to do WHEN she tells him to do it. We'd still have women complaining that men didn't think for themselves...That the amount of work involved in keeping his work list up-to-date was just intense....that it is so unfair that women have to come up with the list of things to tell him to do...yada yada yada.

So let's see...a woman asks a man to do dishes...if she did them, he wasn't helping. If he does them, he was only following her request, so that doesn't really count. So as soon as you ask, the respoonse is inconsequential. OK, let's reverse it...a man asks a woman to get dinner ready...WHOA!!! WHOA!!! What a pig, what a horrible person, what a control freak.

What we really need to do is BACK OFF of the poor me, and start taking responsibility for our own decisions. If a guy is in a relationship with a woman who stays home and watches TV all day with a dirty house and no dinner, it's time for him to go. If a woman is in a relationship with a guy who stays home watching TV all day with a dirty house and no dinner, it's time for her to go. It is EXTREMELY simple if EVERYONE takes responsibility for their own actions. Want help? STOP doing it. Of course, it is very important to bear in mind that taking this responsibility for your action would give you nothing to complain about, so use it sparingly.

Women have to make a choice between family and career that men don't, and that's not equality.

Women have to make a decision to stay home and take care of their kids, have someone else take care of them, or not have them.....the exact same choices men make. That sounds pretty equal.

That is great to hear! (seriously, not being sarcastic). And you are probably being paid MORE than some men. But please know that with or without a union, both genders will make the same, with the same education and experience. In fact, in my office half the women make more than I do...but so does Madonna and I don't buy into the argument that it means women, or maybe an entire society, is holding me back from earning more. So unless you are looking at apples to apples comparison, it is really an invalid statistical comparison to look at the wages of all women compared to the wages of all men and then state that from analyzing it incorrectly, there is some great conspiracy of intention to pay women less.

While it makes one feel good to believe there is a valid reason outside of ones control as to why they don't make more, it all boils down to personal choice and taking responsibility for that choice...no matter what your gender. There is always the exception to the rule, but it would be illogical to base broad statements and policies on exceptions, unless it was for political gain. And for that gain, a small group maintains power at the expense of spreading fear and hate toward society, victimizing the very people it pretends to be looking after.

More men are working. Stay-at-home mothers and "unemployed" older house ladies are not counted in employment numbers because they are not seeking work.

Moderator tyler, why are you suspending the poster above his comments yet continue to allow poster C. Mills-1448676 to write in #25 below. If you look at that posters last five comments to different subjects, you will notice the same diatribe.

T Bourlon..What an interesting perspective you have. My best to you and your personal goals. The thing is these studies to attempt to use comparable data with the variable being gender. They would be laughed at if they compared CEO salaries to their secretary or a Dr.s to his Nurse. No reasonable trade journal or panel would take their study seriously.

In your world, "enlightened" men should not be settling for women that make less money. Hey guys, make sure that when you pop the question, your lady is brining in the exact same amount of money.

The main problem is that there really aren't enough men that take women's studies courses to teach them the errors of their patriarchical ways. These men are too busy trying to make the money money that they can because women judge their worthiness by the size of the paycheck.

I agree Liz. My wife works IT for one of the largest Insurance companies in the US. She is the ONLY female in her division and the lowest paid member of her team.....even though she has been there longer than almost every individual that she works with and has the same responsibilities. It is definitely a sad state of affairs.

Liz-278420, do you have the same education and experience as your male counterparts?

Just because men are better than women does not mean they dont deserve equal pay.We need equality of pay to maintain social stability.

I didn't say better. I said different

Saw the same thing in the Navy with the "Women at Sea" program to put women on Combat ships. It was a 65 lbs equipment rack, you had to lift to chest high in order to open to fix/trouble-shoot. It was in a space that was manned by the single tech at GQ. Was a vital ships combat systems computer.

htdjpf, my friend, none of the men in my division have certifications that are current (i.e. anything later than MSCE in NT4). In fact, I am the only one in the group with a bachelor's degree and the only one certified in ITIL best practices and project management. We are all Windows systems administrators tasked with 24-7 maintenance for systems hosting state-provided services. In addition to that, I have the responsibilites of a project manager, software librarian, and all the "your a girl and you're more organized than us, so you'd do a better job with this" tasks that the men can't seem to get a handle on. I would understand if someone with 2 years of experience on me made $200 more per month, or even $400 -- but $800? Even you would have to agree that something is amiss here.

You are describing different jobs and experience. Are you sure you are counting experience properly?

Project manager is the typical female "techie" track. The work is generally less technical, more managerial and typically requires working fewer hours, especially at night and during weekends.

Describe your "bachelor's degree". BSEE (Electrical Engineering)? BSCS (Computer Science)? Is it a relevant degree?

Liz,

If their MSCSE cert is in NT4 then they have around 15 to 20 year experience as system Admins. Do you have that much? I can't explain specifics of the company you work for and why they pay the way they do. You say you are a Project Manager, that could do it. Maybe they have you classified and "Management" instead of IT Admin or Support. That could be $800 easy.

I worked for a Company many years ago where the new manager for our IT group (he wasn’t in IT) felt it was his “duty” to save the company as much money as possible by doing everything in his power to pay us as little as possible and told us this to our faces. He then stated that he felt we were over paid, even though we averaged salaries that were 75% of Market Rate for our positions. His plan included giving us poor performance reviews, so we wouldn't be entitled to even the company’s yearly across the board raises, and not following written company salary policy. When he took over our group, every member went from an “Outstanding” or “Excellent” to Doesn’t meet expectation” under him. His explanation was that since we had performed at such an Outstanding level for several years, that was the “Minimum level he Expected us to perform” and that unless we exceeded that we didn’t meet “HIS expectations” for our job performance. Total BS? Yes. An unsatisfactory performance review also allowed termination without our severance package.

So, maybe it's just who you work for. I took a position making less money to not have to deal with that anymore.

While this may be true, only some men ask for more. The extra money required to hire someone is usually short-lived as higher starting salaries are equalized over time by smaller raises.

Amen. Been there too.

Let me preface this with "In the US".

That's all well and good to say, but women actually get punished for asking for raises, or for talking about their achievements. See this article which references a number of other articles and books on the subject:

http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/bitstream/2149/2026/1/ABlawconf2.pdf

Women have to be careful about trying to get ahead, or they'll be labelled as "pushy" or "b1tchy".

Would it be safe to say that you don't like men?

I think the only safe thing to do is back away slowly from this person and make no sudden movements.

c.Mills...as a woman I would seriously appreciate it if you did not portray all women as hellish victims of pregnancy. I had two pretty easy pregnancies. I worked up until my due date with the first and didn't miss work except for a couple of OB appointments. I was generally pleasant to be around and where the belly did get in the way from time to time they were very good days. My second pregnancy was considered high risk, old and carrying twins, again not too bad and I managed to keep up with my active two year old along with several community committee obligations and the Dr., although he threatened, never put me on bed rest. It isn't like we all have Damien trying to claw his way our of our vagina's.

Some women have difficult pregnancies but for the most part that is random, and by and large most pregnant working women are not rendered incompetent or should not be offered "cosmic" authority to be less than they are in the work place.

Sorry if some guy was ugly to you somewhere along the line. There really are many good men in this world.

C. Mills-1448676 wrote "Let us TRACE THE "PROBLEM-LINK" here: .....Women - after being warningly STICK-TO-THEIR-STOMACH for nine (9) long months, and then spending almost a WHOLE DAY IN GYNAECOLOGICAL AGONY..."
Wow. Did you just exit of a gender feminist class that teaches that all heterosexual sex is rape by the partiarchy and that, of all women in the world, white American college girls are among the most oppressed, bested in victimization only by privileged, white American female college professors that work in the Women's Studies department? I just want to get my bee hive of friends with their "Take Back the Night" signs, corner a bearded old math professor (a purveyor of the most oppressive male discipline : science) in a remote corner of the campus and beat him until he starts to talk about his feelings.
Men, in general, have to earn more money than a woman in order to be minimally qualified as her mate. If a woman produces 2-3 (but not only one) children and is willing to put in extra time to provide her specialized maternal care, I'd say that's an even trade for the income disparity between men and women.

Setting "MEN-wages" (i.e., 100%) and "WOMEN-wages (i.e., somewhere around 60% of what Men - basically, PAY THEMSELVES.

You know, just for the sake of your future arguments, as long as you're making it up, I'd go with women only make 14% of what a man makes. Your victimization would be so much easier to understand. It is actually a shame that you choose to make up so much of your own animosity. You create monsters in your mind and assign them to those you have targeted. Luckily for women, most women are not like you...as a matter of fact, by reading your whole rant, I'm wondering if you are a danger to yourself or others. I seriously suggest you make an appointment to vent some of that anger to someone who can help guide you back to reality.

What a retarded post. If you hate men so much get stop using all the technology they invented, including the internet.

KateB-719583 wrote "Do I begrudge them their constant in at 10 a.m. out at 3 p.m. 3 days a week? *hmmm*"

I've never seen this. You describe five hour work days.

"If they were actually raising kids that were not spoiled-brat-hellspawn with no manners"

Kids. They don't make them like they used to ... The above statement can be found in books written in the 1800's. And today's children will say that about the next generation of children.

THANK YOU for pointing that out! I just made the same point in another post. I'm still in school and just got married and all of that, but a lot of my female friends are starting on their careers now. Not a single one of them negotiated. They look at you like you've got three heads, or--OR!--they actually state, "No, of course not, wouldn't that be...rude?" "Um I don't want to sound cheap to my new boss, silly! He he he!" It boggles the mind. How did the 1 "housewife" out of this group end up the only one who got that message?

m-1209935 wrote ""Um I don't want to sound cheap to my new boss, silly!"

Men would see this along the lines of courage. "I did not have the balls to challenge my future boss and competition when it mattered.". Bosses will remember this challenge and sort candidates for future opportunities according to a demonstrated ability to take risk. Negotiation requires courage. Courage is developed in the masculine culture of boyhood. Boys will take physical risks such as jumping off a bridge with a bicycle into the river below or fighting. Girls, even those that spent much of their playtime in the company of boys, will watch and say "that is so stupid." Which sex is better prepared for salary or automobile price negotiations?

Studies have shown that women get punished for asking for raises, while men get rewarded. When women ask for raises, their bosses (even female bosses sometimes) think that they're pushy and they should be happy with what they're getting. When men ask for raises, they're seen as ambitious and go-getters. I've experienced this myself. It's nothing to do with courage. Women have to pick their times very carefully, to avoid this.

Brad B.-1012537 wrote "Homosexuals for example seem to excel,"

There are notable examples in industries otherwise dominated by women. But overall, how can you possibly make a statement like that when homosexuals do not generally self-identify?

No one really knows just how many there are although estimates range from 1% to 20%, with 1% probably being closer to correct. A check box on employment and census forms as do exist for sex and race identification would help identify this special, behavior-based group.