(July 24, 2014 at 9:19 am)Blackout Wrote: Tiberius I've seen similar studies in my country that justify with similar factors why women earn less, but can we call that discrimination? I don't think so. Let's imagine women put the same time and effort to work and studies, do you think there would still be a wage gap? No. Discrimination would be if equal jobs means less paying for women and more for men. You can't say it's discrimination if, let's say, more men are CEO than women. I've met some women on real life that occupy high ranking jobs, most of them either do not have kids or their husbands are stay at home dads, they're proof there is no such thing as discrimination when it comes to high ranking jobs, as long as you have the skills and can do it well, they'll hire you.
If you look at the way our species has evolved it seems likely that a 9 months long gestation followed by a prolonged childhood put enormous pressures on our females. It probably goes a long way to explain the tendency of females to look for mates that are good providers. In a state of nature, wouldn't mothers need either the help of an extended family or troop/tribe. I wonder if our pair bond is (and was) stronger than in other primates.
One stance one could take toward this state of affairs is to legislate in some support for females to compensate them for the demands of motherhood. But, taking into account Tiberius' comments, another way would be simply to note that this is why women are more focused on a mates means to provide. So one could say "let the inconvenience of motherhood be handled the way it has always been handled" in other words, leave women in the care of the mate she chooses. In the first stance, one looks to accommodate motherhood on a troop-wide level. By the second stance, one says let the pair bond take care of it.
