Talk:Gender pay gap in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV

This article is rediculus as it is currently written acting as though this is fact, rather then a claim. To be NPOV it should say that some members of the feminist movement argue there is a gender gap because ect . . . ect . . .

The fact is that there is no gender gap, federal law prohibits wage and employment discrimination, and the EEOC last I checked recieved less then 100 cases nationwide a year of wage discrimination for any variety of reasons. As for men's work and women's work people seem to forget that the industries dominated by women entail less strenous labor, are not as dangerous, and have less risk and wear and tear then those dominated by men, difference between a lumberjack and a child care provider.

If women want to be lumberjacks or coal miners the law prohibits discrimination against them on account of their sex, so there is not realistic basis for claiming a gender gap, unless you are argueing from a Feminist philosophical point of view, which should be reflected in the article. 216.255.40.151 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to claim that the wage gap has been refuted, please cite your sources for doing so and we will be sure to incorporate them in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.213.204 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the truth about this subject

I added the following to the article. The source that I cite is a wonderful article, written by a woman, and argues based on facts instead of on emotion:

An April 15, 2005 article titled "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" from the Independent Women's Forum states, "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job. [1]

Grundle2600 (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

....those crazy women! Always arguing with "emotion" instead of "reason" like logical, rational males like myself.

Dude, your very terminology marks you as someone who opinion is worth nothing on this issue, since you're likely to emotionally attached to the idea that women aren't discriminated against rather than someone who can dispassionately examine the evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.150.47 (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user has erased the 98% figure from the article. Why? What are they afriad of? Anyway, I put it back. They also wrongly called the organization "Republican." This is not true - they are libertarian. So I fixed that part too. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from being hysterical, Grundle2600. Ms. O'Neil and Mr. O'Neil examine how non-discriminatory factors can explain the wage gap. An examination of the wage gap which explicitly fails to consider gender biases, one of the most robust findings in organizational psychology, is itself biased. There are other examinations of the pay gap which consider all relevant factors that could influence pay. Sandynewton (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Citations and References

Is it just me or is this article painfully lacking in decent references? I believe it has only 3 cites, ouch! That seems kind of small for a topic of this gravity and importance to economics and social science. I'm at the very beginning of my research on this topic, but I'll sit here and whine about the lack of cites, though I probably won't get around to adding any myself for a few months.Critical Chris (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Gender Wage Gap in the United States is a relatively new article that covers much of the same content this article does (with a few more references). It should appear that the subject matter is similar enough to justify merging the two, so I believe they should be to keep related content on one page. Gracenotes^T § 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. I'm sure the person who created the newer article didn't know about the existence of the older one. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I redirected the other article to this one. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is there a tax gender gap? After all if men make more they obviously pay more, especially if she has children, she probably would be able to claim them. Were can I get info on this? 216.255.11.165 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag: Biased presentation of possible reasons for pay disparity

As other comments have noted, this article presents seven subsections under the heading "Causes of the gender gap," without including sexism as such a cause. The omission appears to favor one POV -- that is, that the gap is largely explainable by causes other than employer sexism. I don't doubt that this is a valid point of view shared by many researchers, but it's not a consensus position. The article should be restructured to present sexism as a possible contributing cause of the pay disparity. 66.104.196.194 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The section "Anti-female bias and perceived role incongruency" certainly appears to include sexism as a possible cause. I'm going to remove the tag, unless someone has concrete suggestions about what is omitted.

Citations for consideration

• Aaron Nathans (22 April 2007). "Women's wages still lag behind in Del". The News Journal (delawareonline). Retrieved 2007-04-22.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

New sources

Here are some more potential sources for the article:

"EXPLAINING TRENDS IN THE GENDER WAGE GAP", June 1998, by Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers

Journal of Economic Perspectives, v12, No1, p137-156, "Understanding the 'Family Gap' in Pay for Women with Children", by Jane Waldfogel (based on 1998 data) on JSTOR -- abstract

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous

' It's important to understand, however, that the gender earnings gap is a relative figure, and thus a shrinking pay gap does not necessarily indicate a real improvement in women's income. '

Yes it does. Relative to men. Which is the subject of this article. Do I have to spell this out for you?! Read the sentence!!!

' the gender earnings gap is a relative figure '

Yes, indeed. Relative to male earnings. i.e the 'shrinking pay gap'. Which is non-existent in any case.

I mean, what are we talking about here, the 'Male-female income disparity in the United States', or wanting women to be rich just because youre a woman?!

You even cite the fact that MEN are getting paid less, as a reason to complain about womens wages!!! How incredibly typical of the Feminist movement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has moved to refute these claims, I'm going to go ahead and delete the paragraph in question. It seems rather out of place on the whole, this is not an argument that has anything to do with drops in real incomes. Also, the paragraph seems to insinuate that men and women continue to exist in two seperate work spheres, a point which is debated within the article and should not be assumed as fact. Ben (talk) 2:53, 7 October 2008 (PST)

Some strong feelings here, judging by the numerous exclamation points. However, the original statement is entirely correct and appropriate, with perhaps one improvement by adding one word, perhaps, for clarification:

It's important to understand, however, that the gender earnings gap is a relative figure, and thus a shrinking pay gap does not necessarily indicate a real improvement in women's absolute income.

It is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia, and has been done in wikipedia, including articles in the physical sciences as well as social issues, to clarify that common misunderstandings are not the correct interpretation, so as to minimize common misunderstandings. That is exactly what the statement quoted does. Initially I thought the angry commenter thought the statement was 'unfair to women' but perhaps they thought it was 'unfair to men' it's sometimes hard to tell the difference when there is so much !-laden anger. Let me point out however that the original point is pro-women and pro-men, if we phrase it clearly enough to serve in the intended role of clarification. It is 'pro-women' because if the wage gap is reducing but happening while downsizing and corporate-led 'rollback' of wages is widespread, women can be losing absolute ground, and it's important not to have a false sense of progress by looking only at the wage gap, and the clarifying point is also pro-men for similar reasons: it makes the point, even for audiences that think that equality in wages is a good thing, that, diminishing wage gaps alone cannot be the only factor to look at to decide whether there is 'good news' in the job market or not, because it may be happening due to men's wages declining (while women's are stagnating, for example, or women's wages declining but men's declining even faster). So the clarifying point is, once we phrase it clearly, both pro-women and pro-men.

Putting aside the "pro" social aspects (which I mention in part due to the many exclamation points) there is a simple factual reason to put in the point, as noted above, to avoid common misunderstandings. One such common misunderstanding in any situation is to confuse absolute and the relative, the common confusion appears from innumeracy which is widespread in the public and in media reporting on any issue; here the common misunderstanding to the falsely assume that women's "absolute" wages (whether we're looking inflation adjusted or not, a separate issue) are increasing, just because the pay gap stats says the pay gap is decreasing. So it's pro-women, pro-men, and also pro- clarifying and avoiding common false impression by readers, for the entry to make a short clarification on this issue. Harel (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Harel. Moreover, it is important to note that while the raw wage gap is shrinking the proportion of the adjusted wage gap which remains unexplained by anything except discrimination remains the same (http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Earnings&ContentRecord_id=db19df76-9299-4b46-a98c-ef33c21dab3d&ContentType_id=2206321f-9e59-4f98-b972-d78c64abf642&Group_id=51e071bd-07e9-46f2-bb70-cfc28baec8be&MonthDisplay=12&YearDisplay=2007), or according to Blau and Kahn (2000) is actually increasing. Sandynewton (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Severe bias

Ugh. We have a section "Causes of the gender gap" that lists a whole bunch of possible causes, many of them speculative, but doesn't list discrimination - even though using standard techniques to control for these alleged causes of the wage gap, researchers typically find something like a third of the gap is completely unexplainable by these factors, and is thus residual discrimination. Until I cut it, the last paragraph of the lead was nothing but a pull quote from some rightwing antifeminist group about how there's no discrimination in employment, and we know because we heard it from this one guy who used to work for the gummint. Terrible. <eleland/talkedits> 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There also seems to be a strongly implied belief here that if income disparity can be put down to anything other than employer discrimination, even if it's simply discrimination by someone other than employers, than it's cause to sigh relief and move on. Like, if we can explain some chunk of the wage gap as "merely" job segregation, than we just leave it at that, rather than pursuing the questions of why are jobs segregated? why do traditionally female jobs pay less than traditionally male jobs? etc. Very dismissive attitude. <eleland/talkedits> 01:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored the quote you pulled, as I don't see a problem with quoting groups just because you claim them to be "rightwing" and "antifeminist." If it was inappropriate for the lead, as you stated in your summary then it should ideally have been moved, not deleted. You have concerns about bias; I also have concerns about it, such as our repeated referencing of the income difference as a "gap." "Gap" implies there is something wrong, a problem, an omission, or discrimination -- when the existence of discrimination as a factor in the difference is actually disputed. Thus I suggest phrases like "gender gap" be quoted throughout the document, to maintain a neutral point of view. I also added "hours worked" as a cause, and provided a source. Blackworm (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your position: the IWF is only something that I claim is a rightwing group, even though the eighth word in its article is "conservative," and it is followed by six references. But on the other hand, the word "gap" has a liberal bias and belongs in scare quotes – possibly evidenced by how often it's used by those left-wing groups, like the World Economic Forum,[2] the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics,[3] and that pinko ragsheet the Financial Times.[4]

Would you please get a grip? This article quotes arguments from five antifeminist (sorry, "equality feminist") sources – some multiply, and for whole paragraphs – and zero feminist sources. It gives Austrian economists almost as much space as real ones. Either the antifeminists and Misesites have to go, or we have to introduce a lot more arguments from feminists and socialists, but the current status is not acceptable in the slightest, your Colbertian protestations of bias notwithstanding. <eleland/talkedits> 00:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, both of you sound like you are editing from POV. Fighting POVs <> NPOV. Calling the word "gap" biased is just silly. There is space between the two levels, that's a gap. NPOV requires us to represent major viewpoints and present the controversy neutrally, as factually as possible, and to emphasize scholarly, peer-reviewed sources and reliable journalism over opinion pieces. Let's focus on that, instead of advocating respective positions, K? Msalt (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you call the gender difference in university enrollment a "gender education gap?" Of course not -- and no one does. That's because men are the ones underrepresented, and thus it isn't seen as a problem. So "gap" does seem to imply not only a difference, but a problem -- and I think there is merit to the argument that "gap" implies "something that needs to be closed up," i.e., it's a normative statement of the differences in income. I've even seen the phrase "positive gap" used (where men make less money)[5], as further evidence for this. Blackworm (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The "educational gap" can be fully explained by factors other than discrimination. The gender wage gap cannot. Even the most conservative estimates of the gender wage gap end up with an unexplained gap of 7-5%. Sandynewton (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I infer by your selective use of quotes that you agree that the word "gap" implies a problem. That the difference is due to gender discrimination may be your opinion, but a quick read of the article shows that that opinion is by no means a consensus. Further, even if it were a given that the difference was due to discrimination, that still would not make it neutral for us to claim, without attributing the view, that it is something that needs to be rectified (i.e., a "gap"). (This may be hard to accept for those who view Wikipedia as a means to fight discrimination.) The fact that it is not a given but a disputed point only reinforces the idea that it is non-neutral for us to use the term "gap" without further comment and without attributing the term to the group claiming gender discrimination as a cause of the difference in average yearly wages. Blackworm (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your inference is quite accurate, dear Bookworm. I quick read of the article reveals that the people who disagree with the self-evident and verifiable truth that a large part of the gender wage gap cannot be explained by any other factors beside discrimination, insist against all logic and evidence that Warren Farrell is correct and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is not. Is it not interesting that almost everything that denies the existence of the gender wage gap is sourced with Warren Farrell, mensstuff, a book from 1984, and a libertarian journalist? Sandynewton (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that my username is "Blackworm," not "Bookworm;" and I also object to the term "dear" which I interpret as being used in a belittling manner above. As we are not acquainted, please address me normally and without the use of diminutives or endearing terms that may reasonably be perceived as sarcastic and thus incivil.

Again, please read my third sentence above, which begins: "Further, even if it were a given..." Despite that, if the gender wage gap is the same as the gender wage difference, as we state in the lead paragraph (with sources), then we are asserting that the entire difference is a "gap." Since it is disputed whether the entire gap is due to discrimination, then even if we could describe discriminatory things as "bad" or "a problem" or "a gap" without attribution (which we cannot, see WP:NPOV), we still couldn't call the entire difference a problem or a gap. Blackworm (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Blackworm, no one has ever claimed that the entire wage gap is due to discrimination, or systematic anti-female biases. If factors such as experience, education, hours worked etc. are held constant, the gender wage gap shrinks, but a considerable portion of the gap remains unexplained, no matter how many predictors beside discrimonation you include in the regression.

Moreover, Mr. Blackworm, no one is suggesting to write that the gender wage gap is "bad" or a "problem." There are enough people out there who consider the discrimination, negative stereotypes and biases that women face in employment a wonderful thing. Hence, it shall suffice to simply call it what it is: a gender wage gap. I will make sure to provide analyses of the gender wage gap which will explain to you in detail that the gender wage gap shrinks but does not disappear if we control for all factors which have been known to affect pay.

Good day, Mr. Blackworm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandynewton (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Previously removed paragraph

The text: "In their working paper from 2005: What Do Wage Differentials Tell Us About Labor Market Discrimination? written by economist June O' Neill et al. - a former director of the Congressional Budget Office - they found that women earn 99.9 percent of what men do when, among other things, controlling for experience, education, number of years on the job and sectoral employment. " was removed by an anon editor. The study appears to be behind a paywall - does anyone have a copy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.114.211 (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ms. O'Neil and Mr. O'Neil examine how non-discriminatory factors can explain the wage gap. An examination of the wage gap which explicitly fails to consider gender biases, one of the most robust findings in organizational psychology, is itself biased. There are other examinations of the pay gap which consider all relevant factors that could influence pay. Sandynewton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a valid reason to remove the material. That is what we call an edit based on an original analysis of a source, which is prohibited. If you can provide a reliable source specifically stating that O'Neill's paper is biased, that may indeed be relevant; and we could choose to present the criticism or perhaps remove the citation of O'Neill. However, your personal claim that a source is biased is unfortunately irrelevant, regardless of how obvious that bias may seem to you. Since you have not stated a valid reason to remove the material, I suggest that the text be restored. Blackworm (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bookworm, Ms. O'Neil only examines non-discriminatory factors of the wage gap. This is not my opinion. Ms. O'Neil says so herself. The 'study' excludes an entire set of explanatory factors. We should avoid 'studies' like these. If the study is restored, I will be happy to use the same explanation to include dozens of other 'studies' that only examine discriminatory factors and nothing else. We have your word that this is perfectly fine, do we not? Sandynewton (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine, when done in a way that does not give undue weight to those opinions (referring to "dozens"), and that link those discriminatory factors to wages (for relevance in this article). We do precisely that already in several cases. Obviously few studies will examine all possible factors, and we must attempt to present all relevant, notable views. Blackworm (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Blackworm, I realize that you have never conducted any kind of research but let me explain this to you: Including an additional predictor variable in the regression, is not difficult. It is necessary, if the predictor has been shown to be relevant, and in this case, it has. In fact, all' relevant, notable, and reliable analysis of the gender wage gap have considered all relevant predictors. Ms. O'Neil's 'study' is neither notable nor relevant. As a matter of fact, it is the equivalent to a 'study' about racial inequality which fails to consider racism. Ergo: It is worthless. Sandynewton (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not address me as "Mr. Blackworm," as I see that as yet more incivilty. "Blackworm" or "you" is sufficient.

Since I continue to disagree with your view of ONeill's view's relevance to this article, I again suggest find criticism of O'Neill's study or methodology in a reliable source, and we can cite it here. The entire point of O'Neill's study was the contribution of non-discriminatory factors in the gender wage difference; it seems absurd to claim it irrelevant to the topic of the gender wage difference. There is no accepted definition of "all factors," since indeed there may be factors no one has yet thought to examine. Blackworm (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there may be additional predictors which might help to explain the gender wage gap. However, excluding an entire set of predictors which are known to affect pay, is certainly not the correct way to conduct research on the gender wage gap. Studies can be biased if some factors that are related to individuals’ earnings and that differ between men and women are omitted from the analysis, also known as omitted variable bias or unobserved heterogeneity. (Moon-Kak Kim and Solomon W. Polachek, “Panel Estimates of Male-Female Earnings Functions,” Journal of Human Resources 29:2 (1994): 406–28.) Hence, Ms. O'Neil's study is biased as she knowingly excluded a predictive factor. Sandynewton (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not addressing my point that we can't criticize the sources' conclusions ourselves as a reason to remove mention of them (WP:V). I don't have access to the full article you reference, and I'm not an expert on the subject, but the abstract does not seem to support your claim that a study is "biased" if certain factors are not studied. Would you quote the section that does support that point? We could integrate Kim and Polachek's views into the article. However, I'm skeptical that the source supports your claim, since on the surface, Kim and Polachek's claims seem very similar to O'Neill et al.'s conclusions: "Finally the unexplained male-female wage differential declines from 40 percent to 20 percent when one adjusts for heterogeneity. [...] However, when adjusting for endogeneity the gender earnings gap falls and approaches zero percent."[6] Blackworm (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim & Polachek discuss methodological issues which surround research on the gender wage gap. They discuss measurement errors and their claim is that if one uses a specific set of assumptions and adjusts for certain things, one can shrink the wage gap as one see fits. According to Kim and Polachek, a study is biased if some factors that are related to individuals’ earnings and that differ between men and women are omitted from the analysis, also known as omitted variable bias or unobserved heterogeneity. Sandynewton (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll note now that you have again removed the O'Neill reference [7], while it is still disputed here and after it was added by another editor. Please do not do that; the material has been in the article and has had consensus for a while, and it's viewed as edit warring to repeatedly revert to one's desired versions while a discussion is taking place.

Finally I'd like to note that some of the language you choose (e.g., "in their award-winning book...") seems like puffery, and is more appropriate for journalistic pieces than an encyclopedia -- it carries non-neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) implications to write so glowingly about sources, especially when done in a non-balanced way. I presume, based on your comments, that you probably would not write "Warren Farrell, acclaimed author of two award-winning international best sellers..." for example. Blackworm (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are free to do whatever you wish with Mr. Farrell and his imaginary "danger wage premium." A quick check of the editing history reveals that the O'Neil study has been removed by all kinds of people, for very good reasons. I have read the study and as it turns out there is no 98% figure and other findings are quite different from what the paragraph about the study said.

Please feel free to include the study in the article. I will create a separate section for other systematic analyses of the gender wage gap as soon as I can and correct any misinterpretations of the O'Neil study. Sandynewton (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Section "men's jobs and women's jobs" should be removed

It should be removed unless someone can provide citations and references for the speculative claims. Perhaps someone could provide citations and references and then merge it with "Occupational Choice." Either way, something has to be done. Sandynewton (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2010

I have rewritten the section removing weasel words and attributing the views as best I could, and added tags for more complete citations. Note that in several cases I have assumed that the previous incomplete citations verify the article text; that is, I have not personally checked that the sources partially cited by a previous editor make the claims we say they do.

In general, this article is pretty messy indeed. Blackworm (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Only certain parts are messy but I will check and recheck everything that was written in this article. Certain groups of men have violated this article for far too long. Sandynewton (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here, it seems that you are making a sexist statement about editors, identifying a target group ("men") and making an accusatory comment about them. I warn that this behaviour is not permissible in Wikipedia (please refer to WP:CIVIL). Please do not do that again. Blackworm (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Blackworm, here, the operative word is seems. You fail to see the pervasive pattern that all 'arguments' against the gender wage gap come from certain 'men's rights' groups and are sourced with one Mr. Farrell who - I must remind you - fails to provide any evidence or research for his ludicrous claims. This use of unreliable sources and pseudo-experts makes this article messy and, yes, those who use these unreliable sources and pseudo-experts are certain 'groups of men.' Also, Mr. Blackworm, stop telling people what to do unless you can come up with one reason they would obey you. Okay! Yes, I am making fun of you, if you're not quite certain. Will you threaten me with some esoteric Wiki WP:1234567890ßDFGHJKLÖ regulation? Sandynewton (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Section "Is there a danger pay premium"? Farrell vs Facts (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

While Warren Farrell's speculation that there is a "danger pay premium" might be very fascinating, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has answered the question. And the answer is: No, there is no "danger wage premium." Knowledge gets the biggest pay premium. There is actually a negative correlation between physical demands and pay.

The section should be removed. Sandynewton (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What you have identified is a possible difference of opinion among sources, not a problem with the article. Please see WP:V, which states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Blackworm (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that you regard 'Warren Farrell' and 'mensstuff.com' are reliable sources? There has never been a peer-reviewed, published study which supported his claim that there is such a thing as a 'danger wage premium' because, well, there is none, as evidence by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He writes opinion pieces. If you wish to keep his unfounded perambulations, at least make sure to use a reliable source, not 'mensstuff'. This is not a case of 'variability,' this is a case of a man who has no proof for his claims going against the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statitics. His claim is pure opinion and, hence, should be removed. Sandynewton (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, your last sentence betrays a lack of knowledge of policy. On the issue the higher pay for more dangerous jobs, the source is the New York Times. We can address the sourcing of Farrell's book elsewhere, if you wish. In any case, I stress that your opinion on whether Farrell's opinion is "unfounded" or not has no bearing on whether it should be included. Blackworm (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, Mr. Blackworm, this has nothing to do with my opinion. Mr. Farrell does not use research to support his claims. Ergo: His claims are unfounded. The New York Times article was an interview and at no point does the author of the article say that Mr. Farrell has some evidence to support his claims. If Britney Spears had been interviewed and she opined on the gender wage gap, would it be reasonable to include her opinions in this article? Sandynewton (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's your opinion. The Times article was not an interview but an opinion piece from a prominent activist. If the Times published an opinion piece from Spears on that topic, yes, it would be reasonable to include it. I doubt that would happen, however. Blackworm (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, please provide more reliable sources for Mr. Farrell's claims than "menstuff-org." The opinion piece in the New York Times, for instance. Sandynewton (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Opinions being presented as fact.

This is an article on a subject that can be controversial. Let's please take care not to cite the views expressed in the sources as fact, but rather attribute the views to the sources, as called for by Wikipedia policy (WP:V, WP:NPOV). One example is the following: Perceptions of wage entitlement differ between women and men such that men are more likely to feel worthy of higher pay (Pelham and Hetts 2001.) A sentence like that might be appropriate in an academic journal article (presumably written by someone who agrees with Pelham and Hetts), but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. A better way to present the view is to say, "Pelham and Hetts state that..." In that way, we make a factual claim that P&H said that, not a potentially disputed claim that their findings are correct.

Similarly, we have to be careful not to synthesize an overall view based on a selection of sources -- for example the title of that section was renamed to "Men's elevated wage entitlement facilitates negotiating salaries," which seems a synthesis of at least two sources, one stating that men feel entitled to higher wages, and another stating that men were observed to negotiate higher starting salaries. Nowhere is the link between the two sourced, or attributed to a reliable source; and yet the article suggests this as a possibility (and in a non-neutral way): The usual pattern whereby men assign themselves more pay than women for comparable work might explain why men are less inhibited when it comes to negotiating salaries. That last sentence is original research, specifically prohibited by policy. Late addition: it also is badly worded as it seems to imply that the men themselves feel that their work is worth more than a woman's, rather than merely more than what is offered to a degree higher than women feel their work is worth more than what is offered; when this is not claimed by the source.

That particular section will have to have these problems addressed, but I especially wanted to remind editors of the policies that when applied make Wikipedia useful and neutral. Blackworm (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How odd to have someone who references everything with 'Warren Farrell' and 'mensstuff.com' lecture anyone on objectivity.

Actually, the sentence Perceptions of wage entitlement differ between women and men such that men are more likely to feel worthy of higher pay expresses today's consensus on the issue. The Pelham and Hetts research was just one example of a study which found this. If you wish I can add more references. The study was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, so I do not see the problem.

I will source the link between men's elevated wage entitlement and the willingness to negotiate starting salaries in a few days. Sandynewton (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence is a personal attack; please don't do that.

I think my point stands about Wikipedia not asserting truths, but rather attributing views. If it's a consensus among academics, no harm is done by stating that it's a consensus among academics, rather than stating it as a truth; but I'll concede that it's a minor quibble.

You seem to agree that the link is not sourced, and yet you reverted my changes to the title of the section back to your version before sourcing that link, over my objection -- I have no doubt that you will be able to source the link, but please note that it's not acceptable to revert the deletion of synthesis until the problem has been addressed.

Now, is the link itself a consensus? The wording you have chosen indicates so, but there is no way for the reader to verify that since the sources are primary sources and do not seem to claim a consensus.Struck out -- irrelevant since the entire link is unsourced at the moment. When sourced, we must make sure to source the consensus if we are to phrase it as fact rather than an attributed view.

Also, are we presenting the whole issue of starting salary negotiation? Are there other factors besides a sense of higher worth that contribute to the desire to negotiate a higher starting salary? If the answer is a clear "no," then the title of the section as you have restored it may be appropriate, but if it's not a clear "no," then these other factors should also be discussed. Blackworm (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A personal attack, Mr. Blackworm? It is true that you source everything with Warren Farrell and menstuff.org and then lecture someone who actually uses peer-reviewed, published research to improve this article on objectivity, so what exactly is the 'attack' here?

You have not made any changes on this particular part of the article, and, thus, I have not reverted anything, over your objections or not. You have deleted the entire 'Wenneras & Wold" study in the "Men receive more credit for their work" section, but you have not changed anything in this section.

I have sourced the link with yet another peer-reviewed, published study. It is apparent that the sentence is an 'attributed view' as in academics everything is an 'attributed view' and yes, all studies about negotiation and wage entitlement have shown that men's wage entitlement facilitates negotiation.

As for your other points, what is your suggestion, Mr. Blackworm? Men's elevated wage entitlement has been shown to influence actual pay as it facilitates negotiation. Do you want me to create another section where other factors are discussed? For instance, there is considerable research which shows that men are more likely to negotiate salaries because women are penalized when they do. I would be happy to oblige! Or I could change the title of the section back to "Negotiating salaries" if you wish and list all explanations that researchers have come up with so far. Is that better? Sandynewton (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not source "everything" with those sources; Warren Farrell is notable here as I've explained, and menstuff.org may indeed not be a reliable source, but I wasn't the one to first add it here, I only fixed the link to it -- and regardless we are using it as a summary of Farrell's opinions that you apparently do not dispute, not for its own opinion. I agree that it would be better to use a better source for Farrell's opinion, such as elsewhere where the New York Times is used. I plan to address that.

Sorry, you're right; I was confused and thinking of this edit which you reverted. As I said in the edit summary, the sentence I removed does not seem to discuss wages or the gender pay difference, thus it's irrelevant here. It seems to be being used, in combination with the other source discussing the awarding of grants, to generate a narrative putting forth the idea that "Men receive more credit for their work" is a reason for the wage gap. This, when nothing in the sources yet presented specifically says that. That is a similar example of improper synthesis in the title and content of the section, which I repaired, and you reverted back to the version containing original research.

I'm still waiting for sources verifying the claim, without a synthesis of sources, that "Men's elevated wage entitlement has been shown to influence actual pay as it facilitates negotiation." Some studies and some sources may claim different parts of that (although none yet brought claim the "actual pay" part), but we can't put it all together and claim our conclusion as fact. Blackworm (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, the Wenneras and Wold study is very relevant. It shows that women have to be twice as accomplished as men to receive the same credit which is directly linked to pay. Evaluations of competence are linked to pay as they are not just descriptive but also prescriptive. Removing peer-reviewed, published research while the article is filled with some menstuff.org and mises.org pseudo-intellectual perambulations is just wrong. I plan to find some sources for the Wenneras and Wold study.

As for the section "Men's elevated wage entitlement," I will source and/or rewrite it soon. Sandynewton (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, do they state the part about "directly linked to pay," or is that your addition to the narrative? From the material added, it doesn't seem that pay is discussed in the W&W source, and thus we can't add it here. I don't object to the idea; it seems to make complete sense, it's just that we can't state even things that seem to logically flow to us. They need to be explicitly stated by the sources. There's other problems; it isn't clear what "twice as accomplished" means -- on the surface it seems a subjective judgment, not a quantitative analysis. Perhaps if the relevance is shown, we can discuss how they measure accomplished-ness, since I think that would be useful. Also, as I said earlier, we can't use two or more sources to generate an argument. Blackworm (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have research to support your suggestion that evaluations of competence are not related to pay, please do post them. The Wenneras & Wold study explains the "twice as accomplished" point. I suggest you read it as your personal impression is of no consequence here. Also, if it takes more than two sources to generate an argument, I suppose that I can go ahead and delete the "Hours worked" section and the "Occupational choice" section? Sandynewton (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, please directly respond to the question in the first sentence of my previous post. Failing to do so is a form of incivility: "Editors are expected [...] to be responsive to good-faith questions." (WP:CIVIL) Also please note yet again: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; [...]." (WP:OR). Sorry, it is not my responsibility to prove the negative of the original research you are advancing: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source [...]." (WP:V) Since I am not suggesting that the article state that evaluations of competence are not related to pay, you have no basis to demand a source for that suggestion. What you seem to repeatedly fail to understand is that I'm not claiming that the disputed article content is wrong, I'm claiming it isn't supported by the cited sources, in contradiction to Wikipedia's policies (and those policies are there for a reason). What we require is a source that both specifically states that men receive more credit for the same work, and that this is a cause of wage difference between the sexes. Then and only then may we cite the view of that source.

With regard to "twice as accomplished," my point about it being a subjective judgment ill-suited to quantification without further explanation stands, whether I choose to read how the researchers quantified accomplished-ness or not. I'm not particularly interested in the explanation other than to clarify the article, and that again is contingent on someone immediately addressing the WP:OR problems I have laid out with the summary of the W&W study as it stands.

With regard to your last sentence, I'm afraid your premise doesn't follow from anything I said. In my last sentence of my previous comments, I was only repeating the essence of WP:SYN policy (a specific case of WP:OR): "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Blackworm (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, the Wenneras & Wold study explicitly states that men receive more credit for the same work, that men and women with equal scientific productivity do not receive the same competence rating by reviewers due to discrimination against female researchers, that a female scientist has to be 2.5 times more productive than the average male scientist to receive the same competence score, and that biased evaluations of competence, nepotism and sexism are directly linked to gender discrimination in employment and the gender wage gap. This study provides evidence of gender-based discrimination and is relevant to this article.

The Wenneras & Wold study has been part of the article for some time now. I have not changed anything about this section except added an additional study. The Wenneras & Wold study is a reliable, published source and the two sentences about the study and the title of the section can be attributed to it. The Bornman et al. study shows that men have greater odds of approval than women by 7% which makes a difference of 2,000 approvals that is due to the gender of the scientists, that there is gender bias in science and science funding, and, according to the researchers, their findings tally with the conclusion of the National Science Foundation that "Women faculty earn less, are promoted less frequently to senior academic ranks, and publish less frequently than their male counterparts” (National Science Foundation, 2003, p. 1).

If you truly wish to argue that these studies are irrelevant to the article, I will have to assume that you are acting in contradiction to Wikipedia's policies and using unfounded objections to peer-reviewed, published research to a) keep fellow editors from improving articles, and b) to advance your position by removing peer-reviewed, published research on the basis of unfounded objections. Sandynewton (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

'Mensstuff.com' is not a reliable source and Warren Farrell's opinion needs research to support it

This article is filled with claims and opinions by one Mr. Warren Farrell. While I do understand that some men here are really fond of him and take his word at face value, his claims must be supported by something more substantial than blind faith. His opinions are just not good enough. For example, Mr. Farrell claims that men are paid more because of a 'danger wage premium' but as data by the U.S. Bureau of Labor indicates, education receives the biggest pay premium and physical strain is actually negativelely correlated with pay. I suggest that Mr. Farrell's ruminations should be removed unless someone can source them with peer-reviewed, published research. Also, I would like to suggest that 'mensstuff.com' is not a reliable source by any standard. Sandynewton (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Second warning: do not identify groups of editors by gender ("men") and assign negative characteristics to them; to do so contributes to an unpleasant, discriminatory environment. Please see WP:CIVIL.

Farrell's notability is not in question, and as his opinions have been published in major mainstream sources, there is a case for their relevance and notability. As long as it is balanced with opposing views in proportion to the sources, I don't see a problem.

As for your personal commentary on his opinions, I invite you to consider the following: it isn't clear that Farrell and the USBoLS are in contradiction. For example, it could be that for two jobs for persons of equal education and skill, the more dangerous job will usually pay more than the less dangerous one (one interpretation of Farrell's claim). It could be that the jobs requiring more education and skill pay more than the ones requiring less (USBoLS claim 1), but that in general the more dangerous a job is, the less education and skill it requires, and therefore in practice the average dangerous job pays less than the average safe job (USBoLS claim 2). If all those things are the case, then all three claims may be true without contradiction. The issue is whether the USBoLS is suggesting that controlling for other factors such as education and skill, dangerous jobs are negatively correlated with pay. (We can ignore the difference between "dangerous jobs" and "physical strain" for the moment.) Blackworm (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You sure like warning, Mr. Blackworm. From now on, I will refer to those who use Mr. Farrell and menstuff.org to source everything as 'men's rights activists.' Everyone will know that they are predominantly white men, and you will have no rason to issue yet another 'warning.' If his opinions have been published in major mainstream sources, please make sure to source them accordingly. Menstuff.org is not acceptable. No, his opinions are not balanced with opposing views in proportion to the sources. Mr. Farrell's ludicrous perambulations on an imaginary 'danger wage premium' receive an entire paragraph. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' data which repudiates his claims receives one sentence.

Mr. Farrell's ludicrous claims are in direct contradiction to the data by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: There is no 'danger wage premium.' Physical demands are negatively correlated with pay, meaning the more dangerous a job is, the lower the pay will be. Hence: No, there is no reason to assume that the "more dangerous job will usually pay more than the less dangerous one." Ergo: Mr. Farrell's claims are not true, unsurprisingly, but I am sure that you will cite a Wiki regulation that says that truth is not as desirable as 'variability.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandynewton (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see clearly the flaw in your logic. You state: "Physical demands are negatively correlated with pay, meaning the more dangerous a job is, the lower the pay will be." That is not quite what a negative correlation means, and I can prove it with a single counterexample: a clerk at McDonald's makes less than an astronaut, when the latter is clearly more dangerous. No, what a negative correlation means is that the average pay of all the people in dangerous jobs is less than the average of all the people in safer jobs. Contrary to what you are saying, there is plenty of reason to assume that with education and skill requirements equal, a dangerous job will pay more -- why else would one choose the dangerous job if they can get a safe job at the same pay? There also exists "danger pay" for dangerous jobs within organizations (e.g., [8]), furthering my point.

Regardless, this part of the discussion misses the point. Wikipedia is about presenting notable views and verifying that the views are actually the views of the people we claim they are. It isn't about finding the "truth," or the correct view, and disseminating it to the exclusion of others. I only engaged you in discussing the topic (rather than the article) because you seem to be basing your editorial decisions on disputed or unproven facts (i.e, that USBoLS contradicts Farrell). Blackworm (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who defends an imaginary 'danger wage premium' should refrain from lecturing anyone on 'flawed logic.' We are discussing averages as terms like "pay premium" imply that there is a prevailing pattern rather than individual cases. A negative correlation means that as the values of one of the variables (i.e., earnings) increase, the values of the second variable decrease (i.e., physical demands) and vice versa. One should add that statistics consist of averages, not individual cases. Thus, your belief that you can somehow support Mr. Farrell's delusions by comparing two people is silly. Also, you would have to provide evidence that astronauts really have a more dangerous job than the clerks whose job comes with its own health related risks.

There is no "danger wage premium" as evidenced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor. I will make sure to add it in the article that Mr. Farrell not only fails to provide evidence for his claims but that his delusions have been repudiated by the U.S. Bureau if Labor. Sandynewton (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Addressing the original and primary points that Sandynewton raised. No Mensstuff.com is not a reliable source which are required per WP:V. However, Warren Farrel is an expert in the field (and one's opinion on his work is irrelevant) - in this case all that needs to happen is that his ideas need to prefixed by the phrase 'Warren Farrel says that...'. As long as his views are given with due weight and any other vies given appropriate weight also.
Sandynewton please read our guidelines for the use of talk pages. What Blackworm said earlier to you is accurate: "Farrell's notability is not in question, and as his opinions have been published in major mainstream sources, there is a case for their relevance and notability. As long as it is balanced with opposing views in proportion to the sources, I don't see a problem." Also it is best not to use rhetoric, as you did in reply to Blackworm, like "While I do understand that some men here are really fond of him and take his word at face value..." - wikipedia is not a forum and this type of comment is not appropriate.
The quotes from him likely come from Why men earn more: the startling truth behind the pay gap--and what women can do about it. It is more inline with site policy to replace rather than remove poorly source but notable and reliable information.
Sandynewton, if you have any questions please feel free to talk to me on my talk page.--Cailil ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. So "menstuff.org" is not a reliable source. Are someone's notes from "mises.org" a reliable source? Anyway, please make sure to source Mr. Farrell's claims with something else. Also, I will make use of the "due weight" policy and emphasize the statistics by the U.S. Bureau of Labor a bit more. They make Mr. Farrell look rather foolish but always remember that you chose to keep his imaginary "danger wage gap" in the article. Good day. Sandynewton (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear WP:NPOV and WP:DUE cannot be used to "neutralize" another point of view - merely to allow for the due discussion of other reliable sources. Secondly an idea that belongs to one person alone should be attributed to them. Please read through WP:V & WP:RS - they will help you understand where everyone else is coming from. And finally, your comment to me comes off as a little combative (even if it is unintentionally so) please try to discuss matters in a colder, source based language--Cailil ^talk 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also as an addendum, I recommend that you perhaps follow WP:WFTE and try to source some of Farrell's material. I am responding to a WP:WQA report more than anything else--Cailil ^talk 02:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, this message is to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts where you have been mentioned. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What does whiteness have to do with gender?

I don't see how this section fits. Men aren't any whiter than women are, so how can whiteness be a cause of the gender gap? It seems about as relevant mentioning the role of height in pay.--Louiedog (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It mentions white men over white women, so I can see the relevance. The problems with that section, as I see it, are:

• Unverified or disputed claims ("Considerable evidence", "low-status groups," "high-status groups")
• Apparent synthesis of sources in first paragraph
• A large paragraph devoted to one study published in a somewhat obscure journal, which in several parts appears to argue the view rather than present the view, along with dubious or unprovable claims ("all three actors performed identically")
• Puffery ("featured in many media outlets", "economic experts") including appeals to authority/name-dropping ("Harvard University", "Princeton University")
• The last paragraph seems to belong under a different heading
• The failure of the material to relate the conclusions to the gender wage difference. This last point seems a pervasive problem with this article.

I'm not sure how best to address some of these things. Do you have any suggestions? You could also of course be bold and edit the section, perhaps integrating some of its content with another section. Blackworm (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Then white men over white women should be the only thing mentioned. Race is a quality that is completely independent of and unrelated to gender. The fact of black men having an income gap with regard to white men might have related and common causes, but mentioning the fact does nothing intrinsically to describe what they are.

The claims are neither unverified nor disputed. You will find the research in parenthesis. The terminology is widely accepted in academic and scientific circles. If you have difficulty with the terms, I suggest you find peer-reviewed, published research that says that men and whites are not high-status groups. There is no such research.

There is no synthesis in the first paragraph. Please check the studies.

The Academy of Management is one of the premiere professional associations for scholars dedicated to creating and disseminating knowledge about management and organizations. The Academy of Management was established in 1936 and is the oldest and largest scholarly management association in the world. The Academy of Management Journal is the academic journal of the Academy of Management. Thus, there is nothing obscure about the source. Also, the study was featured in the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the Washington Post. If you wish to make the argument that these sources are obscure, have fun. The claims are neither dubious nor unprovable.

The women in question are Ivy League professors of Economics. On top of that, Ms. Rouse is a member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama and so forth. Ms. Goldin is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. They are experts, so why exactly is it wrong to mention it?

Not at all, the last paragraph shows that there are biases favoring men over women. There is no contradiction between these studies and the the title of the section.

Customer ratings have been used to determine pay and promotion. The study by Hekman et al. proves that biases in favor of white men influence customer ratings. The Goldin & Rouse study shows that biases in favor of white men influence hiring. I plan to post an additional study by David Neumark. Now please explain to me how these findings do not relate to the gender wage gap?

I will leave your ridiculous "may stray from topic" disclaimer for a couple of days. If you cannot come up with real reasons why biases which affect customer ratings and hiring decisions are "off topic," I will remove the "may stray from topic" disclaimer. Good day. Sandynewton (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is quite common for researchers to investigate racial and gender biases in one study. Hekman et al. did that and many others as well. If you wish, you can change the title "Bias favoring white men" to "Bias favoring men". Everything else is relevant. Sandynewton (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As for editing, I was going to be bold and wholesale delete the section as irrelevant OR, but figured such changes undiscussed would be overtly confrontational.--Louiedog (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting peer-reviewed, published research which directly related to the gender wage gap, is not confrontational, it is a direct violation of this article and Wiki rules. Sandynewton (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I've removed the whiteness from the paragraph as irrelevant. I've also removed the excessive detail pertaining to that one study as well as the publication name dropping that the paragraph engages in.--Louiedog (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote that you may change the title of the section not delete the information about the Hekman et al. study. You have removed the sources and the entire description of the study and its conclusions. I will try to rewrite the section and remove results which are related to race, although I believe that this constitutes a misrepresentation of the study and I would like to ask others if it is permissible to pick certain and chose from a study. Sandynewton (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph, but I believe that leaving out racial biases is very inaccurate. The important finding of the Hekman et al. study is that not men in general, but certain men are favored when it comes to customer ratings, i.e., white men. And to be quite honest, I still do not see how this is irrelevant to the gender wage gap. Perhaps Blackworm or someone else would like to share their opinion on this one. I still believe that the description of the Hekman et al. study should include racial biases and the result that white men are favored over white women, not necessarily men in general. Sandynewton (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Racial inequalities in pay have nothing to do with gender inequalities in pay. Men are no whiter than women are.

Also, please don't simply revert changes made in good faith with explanation. revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. It inflames the debate and further complicates an issue that is necessarily contested.

And I "removed the sources and the entire description of the study and its conclusions." with the reasons given. Why this one particular study gets a complete description of method, questions asked, and conclusion when no other study on the page has anything but a mention is beyond me. As is why this study goes out of its way to name drop which periodicals it's been published in. If something is notable we'll include it a priori.--Louiedog (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The study by Hekman et al. investigates gender and racial biases in one go. This is common practice in research. The study is important and relevant and, hence, is featured in many prestigious media outlets. One of its results is that not men in general are favored over white women, but white men. Please explain to me once more why this is off topic.

I believe that deleting entire descriptions of peer-reviewed, published research complicates the debate for no reasons at all.

You have not provided any reasons. Instead, you have deleted the description of the study and you have deleted links to a New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post article about the study.

This is by far not the only study that is being described here. For instance, a relatively "unimportant" study about downsizing receives an extensive mention in the "Trends in the gender wage gap" section. A study in the "Motherhood premium" section is described in detail, a study in the "Occupational choice" section is depicted as well and and and.

The name-dropping, as you call, is, is called sourcing. And yes, this study is indeed very important and, thus, is featured in all kinds of media outlets.

Once again, I ask you to provide reasons why a description of the Hekman et al. study which examines customer biases which affects hiring and promotion decisions, is off-topic. If you cannot, I ask you to remove the tag as it is clearly unnecessary. Sandynewton (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would like to ask you how you explain your off topic tag now that all mention of race has been removed from the Hekman et al. study.Sandynewton (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have retitled the section with wording that I believe conveys your opinion of the relevance it has to the topic and dropped the off-topic tag. Please see my additional concerns below for why the publications the study has been featured in are to be removed.--Louiedog (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of the relevance it has to the topic is completely irrelevant. Hekman et al. clearly and unambiguously state that consumer ratings have been increasingly used to determine pay and promotion. According to the researchers consumer ratings are "biased in favor of men" thereby creating a systematic wage bias in favor of men. The Goldin and Rouse and Neumark studies show that hiring decisions are "biased in favor of men." The articles about the Helman et al. study are titled "Bias in favor of men."

Therefore, the section should have the title "Bias in favor of men" or "Bias favoring men."

Apart from the fact that "underprivileged social class" is terminologically wrong and does not appear in the section, the new title gives the impression that the studies in the section found evidence for "bias against women" but the studies found evidence for bias in favor of men which does not necessarily equal "bias against women."

I will undo your changes unless you change the title (particularly the inaccurate "underprivileged social class" part) or provide reasons why the title "Bias favoring men" is worse that "Bias against women as an underprivileged social class." Sandynewton (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you have failed to respond to my objections to your changes, I take that it as a permission to undo your changes and restore the original title of the section, "Bias favoring men." Sandynewton (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a challenging time responding to your comments in multiple places. Please see my response below for my thoughts and justification concerning the title change. Also, please keep demands such as "I will undo your changes" out of talk page space. Talk pages on wikipedia are open discussion, which, in the event of content dispute, is unactionable without consensus. If there is contested edit on the article, no further changes will be made until consensus is reached, so statement that an editor "will" change it or giving an arbitrary time deadline before changing are counterproductive to discussion.--Louiedog (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also having a challenging time responding to you objections, which are spurious at best. There is no "content" dispute" since all studies in the section found a "bias in favor of men", the Hekman et al. study in consumer ratings, the Neumark and Golding & Rouse studies in hiring. The title as you changed it is not only terminologically wrong ("Underprivileged social class" is not something that is used in either of the studies or in research in general) but it also implies that there is a bias against women. This, however, is NOT what the studies found. The studies found a "Bias in favor of men." Hence the title "Bias favoring men." Sandynewton (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Disputed" refers to dispute on wikipedia. The fact that there is material that not everyone on the talk page is ok with makes it a disputed addition. Such disputes are to be settled prior to further change.--Louiedog (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain the "off-topic" tag which you - once again - put in against all logic and evidence. I repeat what I wrote to the user Blackworm: This is how Hekman et al., start their analysis: "Customer satisfaction surveys have become a common source of performance feedback for employees and organizations (Hagan, Konopaske, Bernardin & Tyler 2006). Mercer Consulting Group reports that in 2006 customer satisfaction surveys were of primary importance for strategic decision making and over two-thirds of organizations used such surveys to determine some aspect of employee compensation (Mercer Consulting, US Policies and Practices Report, 2007)." and so on and on. Hekman et al. provide research that shows that consumer ratings have been increasingly used to determine pay and promotion. He then shows that "customer ratings tend to be inconsistent with objective indicators of performance" and that using them uncritically to determine pay and promotion opportunities will have a systematic and adverse impact on women's (and racial minorities') pay and promotion opportunities.

The Golding and Rouse study shows bias in favor of men in hiring, the Neumark study shows the same thing.

Now be so kind and explain the "off-topic" tag. If you seriously wish to argue that biases in hiring and consumer ratings are not relevant to the gender pay gap, I have no other choice but to ask the administrators for help.

It may very well be that you are "not ok" with these studies (just as you argue that peer-reviewed, published research should be removed because you find the claims to be "dubious" and just as you argue that The Academy of Management Journal is "obscure").

The question is: Are the studies relevant to the pay gap according to the authors (and common sense): Yes. Are the studies reliable sources of information? Yes. Are they important studies which have received quite a bit of attention? Yes. Sandynewton (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Sandynewton, regarding: "If you cannot come up with real reasons why biases which affect customer ratings and hiring decisions are 'off topic,' I will remove the 'may stray from topic disclaimer." As explained, without a direct, stated link to the gender wage difference, its presence here under the section "Causes of the gender gap" is original research. That is a real reason. Blackworm (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, there is a direct, causal link between customer ratings and pay as many companies base their decisions about promotion and pay on customer ratings, according to Hekman et al. Moreover, there is a direct, causal link between hiring decisions (Goldin & Rouse, Neumark) and pay since not getting hired is linked to not getting paid. Also, there is a direct, causal link between gender-based discrimination (e.g., Aquino and Bommer) and pay.

Ergo: Your objections are unfounded and disruptive. Sandynewton (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if Hekman states what you state in your first sentence, that addresses much of my objection; but the issue is how much does it affect it? The article needs to make the link with pay, but especially to the gender wage difference much more clear. For example, one might wonder, how much of the gender wage difference does Hekman et al. attribute to his findings? Do they state that? We can't devote a large paragraph to this under "causes of the gender wage gap" without having a clear idea at all whether the researchers we cite believe that the things they are saying are significant causes.

If you want to accuse me of disruption, you may immediately do it in the appropriate forum, and prepare to have your behaviour scrutinized as well. Until then, on this article Talk page, please stick to discussing the article content rather than attacking editors, per WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Blackworm (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, this is how Hekman et al., start their analysis: "Customer satisfaction surveys have become a common source of performance feedback for employees and organizations (Hagan, Konopaske, Bernardin & Tyler 2006). Mercer Consulting Group reports that in 2006 customer satisfaction surveys were of primary importance for strategic decision making and over two-thirds of organizations used such surveys to determine some aspect of employee compensation (Mercer Consulting, US Policies and Practices Report, 2007)." and so on and on. Hekman et al. provide research that shows that consumer ratings have been increasingly used to determine pay and promotion. He then shows that "customer ratings tend to be inconsistent with objective indicators of performance" and that using them uncritically to determine pay and promotion opportunities will have a systematic and adverse impact on women's (and racial minorities') pay and promotion opportunities. I think that he does not say how much of the gender wage gap is explained by biased consumer ratings, yet neither does Browne in his book, or Anne York in her NYT article, or Warren Farrell or any other researcher (except Farrell, of course, who has never conducted research). It takes a decomposition approach and an OLS regression to determine the portion of the gender wage gap that can be attributed to a specific factor, but experimental research does not provide that. If you insist that the description of this important study shall be shortened or removed because it does not state how much of the gender wage gap is explained by biased consumer ratings, I will have to insist that everything by Browne, Farrell, Anne York, Thomas Sowell, Andrew Beveridge etc. be removed for the same (spurious) reason.

No one is "attacking" you and you know it. Your objections to this and other studies are spurious and as such disruptive because I spend more time explaining things to you than improving the article. Sandynewton (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"disruptive", "No one is 'attacking' you and you know it.", "accuse me of disruption". This is all very unproductive and engenders ill will. How about from this point on, no one talks about any of the other editors? Everybody please stick to content. Blackworm is not differing with you to be disruptive and the phrasing of "having to explain things" embeds a tacit and intransigent assumption of being immutably correct and asserting the other's viewpoint to be invalid. Talk pages are made so that editors can respectfully make their cases to each other, not so that one may make decisions and "waste time" explaining them.

As for content concerns, the off-topic tag was mine, not his and I left it up because of my previous point of race being unrelated to gender. The two concepts are somehow conflated in a lost of feminist theory but I fail to see an immediate connection, particularly in the text as written here.

Next point, the level of detail presented from the study is IMO entirely inappropriate and undue weight on one topic. For a (lengthy) article on the topic of "Male–female income disparity in the United States" as a whole, all that's needed is a brief summary of the study's conclusions. The methodology and specifics should be left out.

Last point, the fact that this study has been mentioned in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, AND National Public Radio! Should be removed. Wikipedia does not namedrop to prove notability in an article. This isn't how Wikipedia articles are written. If the study is included in the article, it's because editors on the talk page have discussed its notability and merited worthy of inclusion. How we do this is irrelevant to the reader. Explicitly including this wastes the reader's time, is irrelevant and distracting, and makes it sound like we're promoting the study or have something to prove. I look forward to hearing how you differ on these points.--Louiedog (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Since all mention of race was removed days ago, the tag is unjustified. Hekman et al. investigated racial and gender bias and found that consumer ratings are "biased in favor of white men." David Hekman and his colleagues have nothing to do with "feminist theory" and neither do David Neumark, Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse. All mention of race was removed days ago although it is certainly important to point out that not all men are favored, but white men. Anyway. This should be settled: Everything race related is gone.

Not at all. The Hekman et al. study has received more attention than any other study in the past several years. "Methodology" is not mentioned except the part that says that the actors perforomed identically, read the same script, and were in the exact same location with identical camera angles and lighting, which is important because it addresses the usual complaint that one cannot compare qualitatively different workplace performances of men and women. Everything else is vitally important and cannot be removed.

The Hekman et al. study is experimental research. It is incredibly rare that experimental research is mentioned in media outlets such as the New York Times etc. The fact that this study has been mentioned indicates just how important it is for the scientific community and, even more importantly, for the public. This has nothing to do with "name dropping." The study has received considerable media coverage (unlike the vast majority of other studies, books or statements in this article) and it is important to mention it. You have once again removed content without a consensus.

Besides I was not the one who wrote the sentence about the New York Times, Washington Post etc. But I agree with the person who did.

Moreover I would like to add that there are several studies in this article that are described in much more detail than the crucial Hekman et al. study. Sandynewton (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"It is incredibly rare that experimental research is mentioned in media outlets such as the New York Times etc."

It is also incredibly rare that experimental research is notable, given a casual browse through any scientific journal. Most experimental research takes place outside of the mainstream and public consciousness. When it spills over into news organizations caring about it, it becomes notable and gets included here. For this reason, Wikipedia itself is heavily tilted towards using secondary sources and away from using primary sources. To mention what a given study has been mentioned in, after we've already decided to include it in wikipedia is like being a student at Harvard, and running around campus yelling, "You all suck! I got into Harvard!"--Louiedog (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"It is also incredibly rare that experimental research is notable." This may or may not be true (it probably is not) but the point is that the Hekman et al. study has been featured in all kinds of prestigious media outlets. If you have not noticed, secondary sources are being used here, namely the New York Times, Boston Globe, The Washington Post and The National Public Radio, to name just a few.

Now please rewrite the title of the section (which you changed without a consensus and which is terminologically incorrect and misleading), and please explain once again why it is wrong to say that this particular study is very important and has been featured in the NYT etc. Please refrain from any "Harvard comparisons" as they make no sense whatsoever.

Also I would like to add that the Hekman et al. study has already been rewritten to accommodate your discontent, your objections have been addressed ("obscure journal, "dubious claims", etc. etc. etc.), and crucial results of the study have been removed. You have changed a perfectly adequate title to a terminologically incorrect title. Now you have removed a sentence which was written by another editor quite some time ago and which simply expresses that the Hekman et al. study has has an enormous impact on the scientific community and the public. Sandynewton (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please refrain from any "Harvard comparisons" as they make no sense whatsoever. " ?!

The Harvard comparison = it is redundant, unnecessary and distracting to mention qualifications of something that a priori meets those qualifications by virtue of being mentioned. Does this make sense?

"Bias favoring white men, was, as I mentioned, weirdly off-topic in a way that makes the reader scratch his head. Men are not any whiter than women. It's therefore completely off-topic to mention race in this article at all. You may as well mention the effect of height on income, though even that would be more relevant because women are on average shorter than men. So I looked for the connection you were trying to draw between whiteness and gender inequality and it appeared to be that women are commonly accepted to be an underprivileged social class, like blacks.

If there's another connection you're trying to make, we could label the section along those lines instead, but blindly reporting what happened to have been covered in research studies isn't how articles are written. The fact that studies of bias against women is often done in concert with bias against other under-privileged social classes doesn't make the results of the other under-privileged social classes relevant here. You're under no obligation to report everything mentioned in a given source or every result from a study. If a study shows that people prefer Cheerios to Wheaties, and I want to mention this in an article about cereal, I don't have to mention the additional result of people preferring Tide to All.--Louiedog (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Redundant" means "repetitive" and "superfluous" and since the sentence which you deleted without a consensus, "This study has been featured in many media outlets including the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe etc.." has not been repeated and is clearly not superfluous, the "Harvard example" makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, it is important to note that this study is notable enough to be mentioned in all prestigious media outlets (unlike to many other studies or just opinions in this article).

You have not only claimed that mentioning that it is white men and not men in general who are favored is "off-topic," you have claimed many other things. For instance, that the journal (which is one of the most prestigious and famous ones) is "obscure," that the study (which is peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious journal) has "dubious" claims, and that bias in favor if men do not relate to the gender wage gap. All your objections were addressed and some of them were even incorporated. Once again I explain that it is important to mention that the bias in favor of men does not extent to all men, but white men. Right now, the section evokes the misapprehension that all men, including minorities, are favored over white women, which is not true. Race has very much something to do with the gender wage gap as this article is not exclusively about white women and men. Please see the very first picture in the article, the one that compares women and men of different ethnicities, and notice that race is directly linked to the gender wage gap.

"Underprivileged social class" is terminologically wrong and certainly is not used in a any of the studies in the section. Once again, I am not "trying to draw a connection." Feel free to read the studies in the section. All studies show that men and whites are high-status groups while women and minorities are low-status groups. This, however, is the theoretical background for the results of the studies. The actual results are: There is a prevailing bias in favor of (white) men.

And once again, please do refrain from your cereal or Harvard comparisons as they are fallacious. Sandynewton (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"has not been repeated and is clearly not superfluous". It is redundant NOT because it is explicitly stating something that has been said before; it is redundant by virtue of explicitly stating what is already clearly implied. "I am writing words" would be a redundant thing to write to you, not because I've mentioned it before, but because it's already acknowledged.

I made no claim of "obscure" or "dubious". You're confusing me with someone else. I've only claimed that it's off-topic. Further, my concerns have not been addressed because if they had, we wouldn't still be here debating.

As for the claim that the section claims "all men, including minorities, are favored over white women", it makes no such claim or its contrary. Please identify for me the sentence that either makes this statement explicitly or implies it. The article makes no positive claims regarding race whatsoever with the exception of the off-topic mention in the disputed section, which I am arguing for the removal of.

Because, as I've stated before, I am unable to see the connection between race and gender, I assume one exists in your mind. My retitling the section was my attempt to make the connection I believed you had intended. If the connection is not that blacks and women are both underprivileged social classes, I again do not see it, which again makes the race content off-topic. I would support the current title and removal of off-topic template if all mention of race were removed from the section.

It appears that we are at an impasse. I will file a RfC to help us address the issue. In the meantime, please preserve the content in the disputed section unless we can establish consensus for any particular changes to be made.--Louiedog (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating that the Hekman et al. study has been featured in several media outlets is not redundant as - to use your definition of "redundant" - it is nowhere implied that the study has been featured in the most prestigious media outlets. Once again your comparison is fallacious and insulting. This article has many studies and opinions which are mentioned in sources such as "menstuff.org" and "mises.org" which are clearly neither prestigious nor reliable. Hence, being included in this article does not "imply" or equal being mentioned in prestigious media outlets. Ergo: It is not redundant to mention that this particular has been mentioned in such sources.

Yes, indeed I saw only now that it was Blackworm who wrote that the journal was "obscure." I apologize for that. However, your objections, namely that race should be removed, were not only addressed, they were accommodated and all mention of race has been removed from the section.

For instance, "David R. Hekman and colleagues (2009) found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women," which is basically a quote except the fact that the tiny but vital word white has been removed. Anyway. All mention of race has been removed from the section. I repeat: All mention of race was removed from the section a long time ago.

For the third or perhaps forth time, there is no "connection between race and gender in my mind." My opinion is completely irrelevant. The connection, according to David Hekman et al. is that white men benefit from bias, not men in general. But as I said: All mention of race was removed from the section almost immediately after you expressed your concerns, which was quite some time ago.

As for the "impasse," let me repeat: All mention of race was removed the moment you wrote your objections. This was several days ago. Yet you keep tagging the section as "off-topic." Please feel free to check the editing history and see for yourself when I removed all mention of race days ago. Sandynewton (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Loodog (self), Sandy Newton, and Blackworm are unable to reach consensus regarding the article section and what content is pertinent to the topic.--Louiedog (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to repeat once again: Loodog's objection was that race is irrelevant to the gender pay gap. The Hekman et al. study disagrees with him, yet I removed all mention of race the moment Loodog expressed his concerns. Loodog keeps insisting that he will remove the tag if I remove race from the description of the study. I keep saying that I did that days ago. He keeps insisting and I keep saying that I already did what he demands. Ad infinitum. Loodog, could you please read the section and and see for yourself that race is not mentioned?

Blackworm's objection was that biases in consumer ratings are irrelevant to the gender pay gap. I have cited passages of the Hekman et al. study that show that consumer rating have been increasingly used to determine pay and promotion and, thus, according to the researchers, biases in consumer ratings systematically affect women's pay in a negative way. I actually think that Blackworm and I have reached consensus. Sandynewton (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Over-work

I'm wondering whether anything has been analyzed (and I believe I have heard this somewhere, but can't recall where) the issue of overwork. This is somewhat related but very different from the "risk/danger premium" debate. Particularly when the gap is down to 11% and college educated women make 89% of men's* average wages, the implicit assumption seems to be that one can either thing the problem is unfairness to women and womens' wages needing to rise 11% (or more in cases of larger pay gap) or else various arguments here on unfairness to men. A third and neglected factor is overwork. Some of that 11% or more may be from men (a higher percentage of them than of women, to be more precise) taking on super stressful (and "you don't have A Life" work-sleep-work lives) jobs in corporate America.

Both men and women are given high-stress expectations today that may not be healthy for them. Men in particular may be under particularly high such expectations as well as conditioning (making them more likely to want or accept such conditions). In other words, that 11% gap maybe should or at least could come down not by A. women taking more high-stress, high-overtime, 'male' type jobs and the gap closign to 0% but rather by B. social attitudes of 'tough sh*t, suck it up' against men (and women, but particularly men) reduce so that the percent of men who put up with that or feel they have to, comes down, and the wage gap again goes to 0% (this option B. does not have to happen via men's wages going down if productivity and concessions from management counter this factor).

The above should not be read as "some men suffer more so women should shut up about the pay gap" which is definitely not my own perspective, rather, men are being harmed (and women, but in this aspect, perhaps more men) and a work life balance could be found in which men are less stressed out, less over-worked, happier, more fulfilled, and there is less or no wage gap, and everyone is happier (except maybe CEOs get paid "only" 100 times instead of 200 times average worker since concessions were made so both men and women can earn more without working every waking minute) This possibility has been largely ignored, and the debate numerical or social seems to have gone in circles which (falsely) consider only the above two notions.

Clarifier: I am not asking us to do original research but asking whether anyone is aware of sources or can find them, on this matter. *Second clarifier: 'down to' is not an assertion that that is 'small enough' which I do not and would not say.Harel (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I plan to post several (government) studies that show that women earn significantly less than men even if you control for factors like education, "high-stress" jobs, qualification, hours worked, age, tenure, work experience, marital status, parental status etc. etc. etc. The gender wage gap shrinks but does not disappear even if you take into account all kinds of factors that affect pay.

One could also argue that the division of labor at home (on top of regular jobs), burdens women much more than men. Women must hold down two jobs: The first shift was at the office, and the second at home. There are several statistics that women are more stressed-out, less fulfilled and happy than men.

Your suggestions might fit in with the subject "work life balance" but they do very little to explain the gender wage gap. Sandynewton (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that a sub-section on healthier life include research on at least the possibility that women and men would both be better off (assuming employers don't squeeze both too much in wage cuts) if there was a culture of more acceptance for men to spend less overtime in their job, and to less often choose high-stress jobs. Instead our culture is pushing more women into those jobs. Maybe fewer men and fewer women should, and would all be better off? Second: An all-female panel pointed out on the radio that our culture penalizes men more, if they choose to take time off to help with childraising, and penalizes them more if they wish to spend less hours at work to spend more in child-raising, and pointed out that this in turn hurts women both by "less participation by my husband" and hurts them again by employers thinking, "we might not be able to squeeze as many hours away from homelife from her" when considering a hire. Third, again, there is way too much "us versus them" thinking. Does it not occur that men are suffering from exactly the above sentences? Does it not occur that child-raising while taking work and time and energy, is fulfilling, ergo, it follows directly, that those culturally pushed away from it are not only "given a free ride" (a true statement about half the picture) but also denied one of life's basic pleasures (a true statement about the other half of the picture)? Same for cooking at home (I speak from experience) though not for putting out trash :-) If a woman is insecure about her looks it's (rightly) seen as at least in part due to society's negative messages, but if a man is insecure about asking for directions, we beat the crap out of him as having "male ego!" but won't consider for a second that maybe, just maybe, insecurities were programmed into him, too? Nope, he's a 'silly' or has 'male ego', but she gets sympathy (and deserves sympathy in my view, btw) for having insecurities programmed into her culturally since young age for . So many see it as us-versus-them, anti-feminist male rights groups, or "it's all men not working hard enough" women's advocates, both are counter-productive, to the extreme. Why? people assume it's zero sum game - the all-woman panel on the radio gives just one example of how things that hurt women hurt men and things that hurt men hurt women...why do so many fail to be open to this possibility? You want 100% parity with men for pay? I do too. But on the current rate it will be parity also for overwork, and not-enough-time-with-kids and chasing dollars over having a Life. Is that the parity you want? If you agree that's the wrong way to reach parity, then even if you can't relate to anything else I said, then I hope you'll see how research links and references on other saner paths to parity, make good sense.

"I am suggesting that a sub-section on healthier life." The article work life balance would be perfect for it. Not this article.

First you would have to prove that traditionally "male jobs" (truck driver, construction worker etc.) are more "stressful" than traditionally "female jobs" (child care worker, nurse etc.). Then you would have to find research that investigates "stress" and its impact on women and men. Then you would have to show the relevance to the subject, which is the gender wage gap, i.e. you would have to prove that there is some form of a pay premium for "high stress jobs." If you can provide evidence for your theories and show their relevance to the gender wage gap, you are welcome to include them in this article.

Please read the section "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium." There is a scientific consensus, that mothers are penalized and fathers are favored. However, if you can provide reliable evidence that "men are penalized more than women for taking time off from work", please do so. If it is simply a monetary penalty you have in mind, then it is not surprising that men "are penalized more than women" because men earn more than women for comparable work and lose more money if they take time off.

In Sweden, for instance, men are actively encouraged to take parental leave. As a matter of fact, they get more parental leave than women. Yet women are still almost 5 times more likely than men to take maternity leave. And Sweden is an extremely progressive country in terms of gender stereotypes, so it would be inaccurate to argue that men are being "culturally pushed away" from child raising.

This mysterious "all-woman penal on the radio" may or may not have a point. But you are jumping from "high stress jobs" to "women' insecurity about their looks" to "anti-feminist mens' groups" to "parental leave" and it remains unclear what it is that you want to include in this article. Sandynewton (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)