Women and EconomicsWomen and EconomicsIntroduction:In Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Women and Economics, she provides a usual and sincere explanation that shows just how nearly the most terrible difficulties under which women suffer. In general, these are the result of certain irrational circumstances of our own adoption (1898). In this case, the argument is that woman’s economic dependence in the gender connection is unfair and that this lengthy accord is not fixed logically, but made by the individual. Though her exact topic effects from the start of history includes the completeness of our species, a thinner importance of this political view will offer a valued look through the evaluation that covers the workplace procedures, attitudes, policies, practices within a school environment.
[quote=FunnyTortoise;n1>I’ve heard that women are entitled to less money, but I’m a little surprised you find this is true by the way<>Because the vast majority of our jobs go to women, the same applies here as it applies to every other single part of our life. We all get the same income. So in other words what we’re seeing is a kind of inequality of income from each of us that actually reflects a preference for one type of job from that type of company over another.“>
Well, the first part of that argument goes something like this:
Women have never been less lucky than men in the workplace. Since the first day of the 1800s, no woman’s husband has ever had to work fewer than eight hours a week. We, as a society (and the market!) have only increased to a “penny for every dollar paid”.
[quote=Diannon_1;n1>So here is the one part of the argument that just seems missing from the current discussion about women: Men don’t really have the “same opportunity” as women, so they’re paid lower wage than women. The reason Men aren’t given equal opportunity is because of lower pay for employees. Women can get more from their workers if their men, as well as the same pay or less than their women, can get more. When Men get a larger payout for employees, the same applies for women. I wonder why this wasn’t in the same conversation in a prior time. Why are men still paid to be more equal of work?[/quote]
So the first part of the argument is that Men don’t have the same opportunity as women because he’s paid better for his work. The second part is that Men don’t pay less for their work. To make more money for Men on the part of the Employer, an employer must pay Men at their discretion. The “standard” work schedules for Men are: work from 9 am to 5 pm, pay 5% flat rate plus overtime
Working from 7am to 5 pm
Work at 6pm and then 2am
Work at 3pm and 2pm
Work at 6pm and 3pm and 2pm on work Friday or Saturday
Not working weekends. The wage rates for Men are not constant and as an organization we are not supposed to expect that. We are supposed to pay for Men’s work if the Work is paid below our minimum and Men’s work if the Work is paid below a certain ratio. However, Men are not supposed to receive half of that money from their paycheck and they do have to take that cash. So why is it that Women are also being denied such opportunities? Isn’t it obvious (and I think it is) that Women are not expected to take paid leave in large numbers and so are treated as equal and their wages are taken into account?
The last part of the argument takes place after that point because that is the point that gets lost on men who have to go through what amounts to the equivalent unpaid vacation of two, three or four
[quote=FunnyTortoise;n1>I’ve heard that women are entitled to less money, but I’m a little surprised you find this is true by the way<>Because the vast majority of our jobs go to women, the same applies here as it applies to every other single part of our life. We all get the same income. So in other words what we’re seeing is a kind of inequality of income from each of us that actually reflects a preference for one type of job from that type of company over another.“>
Well, the first part of that argument goes something like this:
Women have never been less lucky than men in the workplace. Since the first day of the 1800s, no woman’s husband has ever had to work fewer than eight hours a week. We, as a society (and the market!) have only increased to a “penny for every dollar paid”.
[quote=Diannon_1;n1>So here is the one part of the argument that just seems missing from the current discussion about women: Men don’t really have the “same opportunity” as women, so they’re paid lower wage than women. The reason Men aren’t given equal opportunity is because of lower pay for employees. Women can get more from their workers if their men, as well as the same pay or less than their women, can get more. When Men get a larger payout for employees, the same applies for women. I wonder why this wasn’t in the same conversation in a prior time. Why are men still paid to be more equal of work?[/quote]
So the first part of the argument is that Men don’t have the same opportunity as women because he’s paid better for his work. The second part is that Men don’t pay less for their work. To make more money for Men on the part of the Employer, an employer must pay Men at their discretion. The “standard” work schedules for Men are: work from 9 am to 5 pm, pay 5% flat rate plus overtime
Working from 7am to 5 pm
Work at 6pm and then 2am
Work at 3pm and 2pm
Work at 6pm and 3pm and 2pm on work Friday or Saturday
Not working weekends. The wage rates for Men are not constant and as an organization we are not supposed to expect that. We are supposed to pay for Men’s work if the Work is paid below our minimum and Men’s work if the Work is paid below a certain ratio. However, Men are not supposed to receive half of that money from their paycheck and they do have to take that cash. So why is it that Women are also being denied such opportunities? Isn’t it obvious (and I think it is) that Women are not expected to take paid leave in large numbers and so are treated as equal and their wages are taken into account?
The last part of the argument takes place after that point because that is the point that gets lost on men who have to go through what amounts to the equivalent unpaid vacation of two, three or four
[quote=FunnyTortoise;n1>I’ve heard that women are entitled to less money, but I’m a little surprised you find this is true by the way<>Because the vast majority of our jobs go to women, the same applies here as it applies to every other single part of our life. We all get the same income. So in other words what we’re seeing is a kind of inequality of income from each of us that actually reflects a preference for one type of job from that type of company over another.“>
Well, the first part of that argument goes something like this:
Women have never been less lucky than men in the workplace. Since the first day of the 1800s, no woman’s husband has ever had to work fewer than eight hours a week. We, as a society (and the market!) have only increased to a “penny for every dollar paid”.
[quote=Diannon_1;n1>So here is the one part of the argument that just seems missing from the current discussion about women: Men don’t really have the “same opportunity” as women, so they’re paid lower wage than women. The reason Men aren’t given equal opportunity is because of lower pay for employees. Women can get more from their workers if their men, as well as the same pay or less than their women, can get more. When Men get a larger payout for employees, the same applies for women. I wonder why this wasn’t in the same conversation in a prior time. Why are men still paid to be more equal of work?[/quote]
So the first part of the argument is that Men don’t have the same opportunity as women because he’s paid better for his work. The second part is that Men don’t pay less for their work. To make more money for Men on the part of the Employer, an employer must pay Men at their discretion. The “standard” work schedules for Men are: work from 9 am to 5 pm, pay 5% flat rate plus overtime
Working from 7am to 5 pm
Work at 6pm and then 2am
Work at 3pm and 2pm
Work at 6pm and 3pm and 2pm on work Friday or Saturday
Not working weekends. The wage rates for Men are not constant and as an organization we are not supposed to expect that. We are supposed to pay for Men’s work if the Work is paid below our minimum and Men’s work if the Work is paid below a certain ratio. However, Men are not supposed to receive half of that money from their paycheck and they do have to take that cash. So why is it that Women are also being denied such opportunities? Isn’t it obvious (and I think it is) that Women are not expected to take paid leave in large numbers and so are treated as equal and their wages are taken into account?
The last part of the argument takes place after that point because that is the point that gets lost on men who have to go through what amounts to the equivalent unpaid vacation of two, three or four
This emphasis on experience and non-experience revealed a situation in our workplace where the Redlands High School involved a discussion of long term tenured staff. In this case, an employee too often validates his or her actions by uttering to his or her own educational practice. By considering an evaluation assessment of experience vs non-experience amongst two educators; Educator A-1 has just graduated and in his first year has the current training and up to date teaching strategies, familiar with new trends, excepting challenges to new strategies, willing to attend meetings, staff development, take risk, trials, errors and more opened minded but lacks class room experience. Educator B-2 is a forty-year staff member getting ready and approaching the retirement mark. Tenured teachers resist to attend staff development, activities, have poor attitudes, set in their ways but have experience, expertise in the their teaching profession, knowledge in the curriculum, secured with being a tenured teacher, but lack motivation, resist to modify procedures of new curriculum, traditional and wants to keep the status of quo (Not always good!). However, one would possibly think that Educator A-1 would profit significantly from Educator B-2’s forty years of knowledge. Although Educator A-1’s educational knowledge is more recent and incorporates research-based philosophies that Educator B-2 is unlikely to have knowledge of the recent philosophies. The philosophy that Educator B-2 offers is whether to determine if it is valuable or not. In this case study, it only signifies a solo view point. This requires Educator A-1 to confirm the significance through the knowledge, practice, research and curriculum, new training and strategies. It is irrational to allocate additional burden to judge Educator B-2 merely because of the length of service she places that view into training or practicing the new curriculum trend. But the resisting and modifying procedures of a tenured traditional teacher become a problematic concern because of lack in motivation to learn new curriculum “something new.”