I know several women that are self-taught programmers and didn’t go to college. I’m not sure why you’re saying they don’t exist.

This won’t get you new hires next year (unless the college students are involved, well maybe), but it will seed the local market with girls and women who are quite pro-engineering.

And Nicole points out (unsubstantiated but I believe correct) that when you *don’t* correct for these factors that men of color make less than women as a whole.  If you want to talk only about numbers corrected for those factors then okay, but then leave out that 77% number.  If you want to talk about uncorrected numbers then there’s a thousand interpretations possible comparing different populations.

I mean, if you didn’t read the paper orangedesperado presented you’d think it supported their case.

I hate to be so negative, but the article from this post is exuberant in ‘shove this in their face’… and I’m reading it and, it’s not a blinded study. It’s a sample size of 14 women.

Even the researchers refer to it as a ‘subtle’ bias. A subtle bias, on a small unblinded sample. It’s interesting, but that’s about it.

Tattoo artists charge $150.00 or more per hour, for a job that has no professional requirements for specific education or training. What do you feel the risk or danger involved in their profession is ? 

You are twisting in circles to deny the existence of gender and race based discrimination with regards to equal pay for equal work. How can a workplace be equal and discrimination absent — if there are some people who are deemed to be worth less for the same work — that is if they can be hired at all ?

The paper never says that. At no point does it say they do equal work at an outside job, it actually says they do less. 

They do more domestic work, with some statistical variation close enough to qualify as a scientific ‘balanced’, and then do less wage earning.

The New York Time’s article does exactly what I was addressing with my first post, for science, you’re not allowed to throw out part of an equation and then be surprised when it doesn’t add up.

“Do you feel that Forbes is a particularly good representative of feminist thought or research ?”

Much like the article you provided, the Forbes article is a gateway to the information. I looked at what Carrie was saying and then looked at the data she was referring to. Unlike the Times, I feel the conclusion is representative of the data given. The averages generated in the census data is not same job, same position, same hours. It’s just add up all paychecks and divide. 
Beating a dead horse, to be sure, but you can NOT discount the hours work discrepancy and expect the wage discrepancy to make sense.

Those wage figures are not controlling for anything. Just by adding hours worked to the equation they even out. But let’s say you don’t buy that. Let’s say, for whatever reason, you are staunch in your stance that the hours worked must be 50/50.

US Bearau of Labor and Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Flip forward to Page 10. Of the 4,609 workplace fatalities that occurred in the most recent study, 92% were Men and 8% were Women. The more dangerous jobs are, predominantly, staffed by men.

Dangerous jobs pay more money. They have to. Because if they didn’t, no one would do them.

So that wage data, remember, isn’t controlling for anything including relative risk of job. So if riskier jobs pay more, wouldn’t the gender who occupy those positions make more?

Now bear in mind, I’m not saying the hours worked by men and women are equal. I’ve seen nothing to back that up. However if you choose to believe that, hopefully you can see that there can be other reasons why there’d be a discrepancy OTHER than discrimination.

Do you feel that Forbes is a particularly good representative of feminist thought or research ?

****
In all countries, women do more of [unpaid] work than men, although to some degree balanced – by an amount varying across countries – by the fact that they do less market work.

****

The study does not support your conclusion. While women do more housework, they do less market work. That ultimately the work loads are fairly balanced. The point of this paper is that gross domestic product is not a good indicator of actual work. It has nothing to do with an inequality. The paper even says:

****
The consideration of unpaid work for relative inequality and for inequality over time is not directly addressed in this paper
****

In other words, it’s not a joke about women, it’s a joke about sexists.

You are dreaming if you believe that the world is now an egalitarian utopia where men and women are paid the same, and do the same amount of work within the home, not to mention other unpaid work like volunteer positions. And don’t even get me started on how race pertains to the fiction that everyone is paid the same…

There are cultural issues that drive opt-outs as well.  It doesn’t take a lot of bro-grammer asshats to make someone feel unwelcome, even if Bros are in fact a barely tolerated minority. It’s a reason dickish behavior should be challenged, immediately, with calm but public shaming. Otherwise, it speaks for the crowd. 

After all, there is no perilous adventure without peril.

One does not simply walk into the boss’s office.

Read Carrie Lukas’ post from April of this year on Forbes.com.