|
I suspect that the whole issue stems from the abstract ideals that will realistically never be achieved; it would be nice to see an equability of sorts amongst the sexes, however there seems to be quite a bit stacked against this ideal in general. First and foremost, in the real world, equality will never be attained - there is far to much ignorance and stupidity for that sort of thing; second, there are legitimate biological differences that create barriers to many aspects of life, of which, pregnancy and the culture surrounding child-rearing throws a proverbial cog into the corporate advancement of females that a male does not contend with; and the physical differences in anatomy (yes, I know a few women can compete against men, but on average, there is a deficiency as a whole). The simple fact that a woman will be down for at the minimum several weeks (to several months) subsequent a birth, gives many corporations a real incentive to place non-pregnancy capable individuals in positions of importance (and increased pay) - this is strictly a cost function analysis. Aggregate this over several instances of child birth and you can theoretically account for the pay differences in men and women's overall respective averages. As for the phycical differences, the US Military is a fine example, many jobs have dual standards for applicants - one for men, and one for women; the women's standard is often (if not always) less strenuous than the mens. Truthfully, it seems the whole debacle stems from the attempts to equalize a field which was designed in such a manner to prevent such action (biologically). With all that being said, I commend those women that attempt to overcome such odds.
|
Threaded Mode
