Talk:Gender pay gap in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Domestic Statistics and overwork

In relation to the subject of "overwork", there is more complexity to this with the flexibility of statistics governing "full time" and "part time" work. If analysis of work is to have real meaning, it must include all work, cleaning toilets, washing clothes, cooking, etc etc, but this may be more fuel to the fire.Does anyone have statistics on how much work is performed in the home by men compared to women?Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Slanted for the left-wing point of view?

This article seems to have a somewhat slanted POV (i.e. use of the term liberals in "womens jobs mens jobs" section) and repeated sourcing of articles that are quite out of date in economic terms (i.e. figure of men working 8 more hours/week than women in "what is included section"). I'll try to find some sources to modernize the numbers and neutralize the POV. TMNolan 06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

TM Nolan, it is generally true that people on the left side of the spectrum hold the views ascribed to "liberals" in the "women's jobs men's jobs" section. The section doesn't say that the liberal view is correct; it merely describes what the liberal view is (and also what the conservative view is). Accurately describing what liberals and conservatives believe is not "slanted." --Barry Deutsch 12:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TMNolan. This article also uses a poor comparison of income. Comparing the incomes as reported by the census does not control for differing levels of education among females and males. Consequently, the gender gap may be a function that men in the US typically have more years of education than women - pointing to less of a gender bias in income and more of one in education. I will do some research and try to adjust the article a bit. --Vince 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vince, the wage gap is a standard figure used by economists and the US government. The purpose of this article is to describe the wage gap, not to editorialize for or against the figure's utility. To change the page in the way you describe would be editorializing against the wage gap, and would be against the neutrality policy. What you're describing in your comment is a conservative opinion about the cause of the pay gap; it therefore belongs in the "causes of the pay gap" section of the article (and is already in there, in fact. --Barry Deutsch 12:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry, I hope you don't mind I formated your response a bit differently. It makes things a bit easier to read this way. I just wanted to pop in and get a debate started about trying to remove the terms "conservative" and "liberal" from the page. First off the terms seem loaded and secondly in other countries they might not mean the same thing they do here in the states (our liberals could be another country's conservative). --64.65.241.3 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this whole page wreaks of political intent. Nothing about the writing on here sounds scholarly. It all signals the inherent bias of the whole piece. Good economists have studied the issue of men's and women's pay rates on the same job and found very little difference. If it's true that male and female middle-manageres and male and female teachers and male and female truckers get paid the same, then there's no problem. The only time there's a problem is when a difference exists in the same job.

Vince, it is women who have an educational advantage, not men. And it has been this way for several years. I try to describe the methodology of the research used (i.e., Do they control for differences in human capital? And if so, how do they do it?). And I take a lot of criticism for it.

To the last user: I have included studies by "good economists." All of them disagree with you. However, if you have new research, please include it in the article. Sandynewton (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User Blackworm's continued removal of OECD report

Blackworm, I see that you keep removing the two sentences about the OECD report. Your reasons for this are unclear as the United States are an OECD country and the report finds that in all countries "women continue to earn less than men, even after controlling for characteristics thought to influence productivity." (OECD 2002, p. 61). Could you please explain why you feel that the OECD report about the gender wage gap does not concern the United States? If you have proof that the US is no longer considered an OECD country, please post it here. Sandynewton (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of misrepresenting a source, or at least failing to show how to source is relevant while reverting its removal. Find the phrase that says "all OECD countries" that precedes the statement you quote. The statement may be true for the OECD as a whole, that doesn't make it necessarily true for the U.S. The OECD says, "a substantial employment gap remains in many OECD countries," implying that it is not substantial in some OECD countries. They then go on to make the statement you quote. I don't accept that it necessarily applies to the U.S. Stop editwarring over this. You have already practically completely rewritten the article in very little time, and all the time dismissing the objections of editors against your changes. This is not acceptable. Blackworm (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I offered a direct quote from the OECD report I do not see how this is an example of "misinterpreting a source." Since this report concerns OECD countries and the United States is an OECD country the quote "women continue to earn less than men, even after controlling for characteristics thought to influence productivity" concerns all OECD countries unless the report states something else which it does not.

However, if you insist I am willing to remove all mention of the OECD report from the lead --- just as I have removed all mention of race from the Hekman et al. study to accommodate Loodog's objections and just as I have spend hours to address your concerns. Your accusation that I "dismiss the objections of editors against [my] changes" is not true and extremely insulting. I even addressed your claims that the Academy of Management Journal is "obscure," that peer-reviewed studies should be removed because of "dubious and unprovable" claims, that consumer ratings have nothing to do with the gender wage gap, that discrimination in hiring has nothing to do with the gender wage gap and a host of other objections which seemed unfounded to me.

In fact, I will remove the second sentence from the lead to accommodate your objections. However, I might add studies and articles which show that the differences in human capital (i.e., education) are actually non-existent or in women's favor (i.e., women's educational advantage) and certainly cannot explain why women are paid less.

Do you know what "misinterpreting the sources" looks like? It looks like something you did when you reinserted the O'Neil study against my objections. According to the O'Neil study there is a pay gap of 8%, yet you wrote that women made 98% of what men earned. This, of course, was a blatant misinterpretation of the source. A 98% figure is mentioned only twice in the study and only once in connection to gender (the other being mentioned in connection to race). The correct quote is "among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's" rather than what you wrote. This is not acceptable.

Blackworm, I am deeply offended by the fact that you misinterpret the sources (and then I have to correct them) and then you have the nerve to accuse me of "misinterpreting the sources."

I have not "rewritten" the article. I have added information and sources but I have not deleted any of the claims which were already there. You are welcome to do the same rather than complain about Sandynewton (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the OECD source, as you seem to have realized that I was correct on the matter. Thank you for addressing my concerns. You have now repeatedly stated what I consider non-neutral "threats" to add more information supporting an opposite point of the view to the material I have attempted to remove from the article. This is yet another example of incivil behaviour, as it implies that I care what POV gets promoted or not in the article; when the issue here specifically was a clear case of a violation of WP:V policy. That it took me three iterations to make my point is not acceptable, when the issue was clear from the beginning. Do not assume that when one of your edits is challenged that other editors are out to promote a particular POV. They may be concerned about fast, wholesale changes to the article and article weight, and this is a legitimate concern.

With regard to the O'Neill study, the answer is simple: I did no misinterpretation, I didn't read the source at all. I replaced material that was removed on the basis that the study's methodology rendered it irrelevant to this article, a rationale I firmly disagreed with, especially absent any reliable sources brought illustrating that to my satisfaction. You brought these allegations, presumably because you had read the source. Why would I need to read it if you had, and presumably verified the veracity of the statement, especially since you were the one challenging it? Finally, you did find and correct the error, and I'm glad and thankful; you verified a source and improved the article, and stopped removing it on bases that did not have consensus. Thank you.

You originally deleted the O'Neill statement, contrary to your assertion that you did not delete any. Please redact your statement in consequence. Blackworm (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I did remove all mention of the OECD report from the lead. I did so not because you were "correct on the matter" but because direct quotes seemed to offend you very much and because I wanted to show you that I very much react to other editors' objections (even though I find them to be unfounded).

Seriously, Blackworm. "Threats"? I inform you of possible changes I wish to make and you call them "threats." "Perhaps I will include more research." Very threatening.

Since you are the one who includes misleading and false claims in the article (O'Neil: "Women make 98% of what men make") and do not even bother to read sources (OECD report), I am rather reluctant to let you lecture me on POV issues.

Whether or not you wish to admit it, the vast majority of sources say that the gender wage gap is real even when you control for difference in human capital and life style "choices." There are innumerable studies which find evidence of gender bias. As a matter of fact, I do not know one single study which said that there was no gap after controlling for those variables. Yet, the article did not mention any of such studies, or proof of discrimination, or anything about the mother hood penalty or why women are reluctant to negotiate, before I came around. Instead, the article was full of Warren Farrel, claims that hours worked and occupational "choice" can explain the gender wage gap. This is perfectly okay, but one does not fail to wonder why you were not concerned about the blatant POV issues then.

Blackworm, the methodology in the O'Neil study was indeed questionable and the misrepresentation of the study's results were incorrect. I was thinking of including several sources which criticized the methods, yet I decided not to considering the complaints about the article's length. But okay. Let us forget about it.

I did indeed delete the O'Neil study. I did so because the results of the study were misrepresented and because the methods used were unscientific according to several reliable sources, but yes, I did delete it -- just as many others have done before me for very good reasons. Sandynewton (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no violation or impropriety in defending a statement citing a source one has not read from deletion based on an objection to the rationale for removing the edit. I never objected to your edit verifying the source and correcting the summary, in fact I applaud it, and thus again you are arguing a straw man, for no apparent reason I can see. You are repeating slanderous statements about me after I have explained why they are incorrect. This is easily dismissed as plain harassment and incivilty. Blackworm (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I consider your statement "because direct quotes seemed to offend you very much" to be a sarcastic personal attack, especially in light of my recent edits you modified where I added direct quotes. Please stop. Blackworm (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You write, "There are innumerable studies which find evidence of gender bias. As a matter of fact, I do not know one single study which said that there was no gap after controlling for those variables." The existence of a gap after controlling for variables and gender bias are two separate things. Apparently many sources discuss the former and strongly suggest the latter is responsible for part or all of the former. That neutral POV was well-presented here, and now the article is being written in such a way as to imply that the former implies the latter, which is not neutral and is one source of my general objection to the 118 edits you have made to this article in the past two months. Incidentally, that makes you by far the number one editor of this article in recent memory, followed by me at 24 and Loodog at 9. Since you continue to edit adding more disputed material while other edits are disputed, you can only expect your work to be wasted as it will likely need to be removed. Blackworm (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, once again you accuse me of incivility although I believe I have been the epitome of civility considering your constant accusations.

Exactly. While you simply deleted direct quotes I modified them by adding information without changing the parts you inserted. Moreover, how useful can direct quotes be when you write that the OECD found that there is no motherhood penalty in the US while they actually write that there is? When I say that I deleted info because you did not like it and deleting it seemed more important to you than keeping it seemed to me, this is not sarcasm or incivility or any of the other things of which you accuse me. Statements like "[...] as you seem to have realized that I was correct on the matter," however, are provoking and insulting.

In the part "causes of the gender wage gap" we present... yes, causes of the gender wage gap as they are presented in the sources. We have causes like hours worked, motherhood, career choices, gender bias, occupational segregation, etc. And we even have things like the "danger wage premium" presented as a source. The danger wage premium is not supported by any evidence, yet we keep it because Mr. Farrell's theory was published in a reliable source. What we "imply" in the article is that all of these factors may or may not cause the gender wage gap. Nobody has ever claimed that gender bias or discrimination is responsible for all of the gender wage gap. Your argument would be accurate if we were to delete all other causes of the gender wage gap and only keep "bias in favor of white men." Yet, we do not do this.

"Since you continue to edit adding more disputed material while other edits are disputed, you can only expect your work to be wasted as it will likely need to be removed." Blackworm, I will try to find a place here on Wiki where I can report you as this is not just an insult but a clear threat that you wish to delete material (mostly peer-reviewed, published research and articles in major newspapers) because you believe it is "disputed material."

I will refrain from replying to any of your insults, accusations, and threats to delete material until I have reported you. Good day. Sandynewton (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "you write that the OECD found that there is no motherhood penalty in the US" False. Prove with diffs.

Re: "The danger wage premium is not supported by any evidence" You have been told by multiple editors what WP:OR is, and how it applies specifically in your objections about that edit, and what WP:V means, and how it applies in this case. Please accept that there is no compromise on those policies.

Re: "...because you believe it is 'disputed material.'" I don't believe it is, it is simply from the fact that I dispute its inclusion -- its inclusion does not have consensus. See also WP:CONSENSUS. I cannot possibly formulate cogent objections to dozens of edits added in a very short time, and so I have focussed on a subset. My comment was only an attempt to encourage you to obtain consensus on the edits you have made before continuing to add edits that are likely to engender similar objections. It would save everyone time and effort.

Re: "Nobody has ever claimed that gender bias or discrimination is responsible for all of the gender wage gap." For clarity, I was referring to the portion of the gap so far unexplained by human capital variables. Yes, that is correct, but some have argued that that gender bias is responsible for little or none of the whole wage difference (the topic of this article). When you edit the article in such a way to imply that a significant amount of it is, using words like "However," "even," "actually," to create a narrative linking various facts in a way not shown to be made by reliable sources, and always without fail emphasizing or de-emphasizing facts in such a way that favour a specific point of view, that is against Wikipedia policy (WP:OR, WP:NPOV). Then, when your edits are disputed, and you come onto Talk and argue: "There are innumerable studies which find evidence of gender bias. As a matter of fact, I do not know one single study which said that there was no gap after controlling for those variables," you are again violating several Wikipedia policies, including WP:CIVIL (not addressing actual arguments but addressing other arguments no one has made, and implying other editors made those ridiculous arguments), WP:OR (using your own interpretation unsupported by sources to support your edits), and WP:NPOV (advocating shifting the balance of the article away from the neutral point of view). Please understand that the objections are not personal -- I have violated all of those policies and have been told so as well, and not by editors who had any personal issue with me or any advocacy issues with the material they edit. They are objections to edits, and arguments made in support of edits. Blackworm (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Your argument would be accurate if we were to delete all other causes of the gender wage gap and only keep 'bias in favor of white men.'" That make no sense. I'm sorry, but you again betray an completely incorrect interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V; just because some material violates WP:OR does not mean that every other piece of material presenting the same views also violates it. "White men?" How did race enter this discussion? You seem to be implying, perhaps based on my race (!?), that I would desire such an edit or am arguing in favour of such an edit -- are you indeed saying that? If you are arguing that, please provide diffs supporting your argument. Otherwise, please fully explain that comment with emphasis on explaining why the phrase "white men" appears in it. Blackworm (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Blackworm, you've been caught misrepresenting research. Twice. But okay. You wrote this [1] to further the viewpoint that the OECD found no family gap in the US. The sentence "The 2002 OECD report stated, "Once the effects of hours worked and observed characteristics are netted out, a substantial family wage gap in favour of childless women is still observed only in Austria and the United Kingdom." is a blatant misrepresentation of the source, unsurprisingly. Once again, I had to rush in and correct it to this: [2].

I am all for keeping the section "Is there a danger wage premium?" What is it about the sentence "The danger wage premium is not supported by any evidence, yet we keep it because Mr. Farrell's theory was published in a reliable source" that you do not understand? Material published in reliable sources stays. It is you who seems to have a problem with it. My problem are sources like "menstuff.org" but with my encouragement you found reliable sources for Mr. Farrell's claims. Good job.

The material was published in reliable sources. The material gives due weight to all significant viewpoints. The material is in perfect compliance with all Wiki policies. If I understand you correctly you "dispute" such material. Your "cogent objections" usually include claims that famous peer-reviewed journals are "obscure" and that the claims formulated in peer-reviewed research are "dubious and unprovable." On the other hand, you do not "dispute" material sourced with "menstuff.org" and, of course, you never demand a consensus for your own edits or material which you approve of. I would like to point out that there has been no "consensus" for your edits or any other edits. Moreover, the article has been upgraded from a Start-Class to a B-Class since I have started working on it. My goal is to help improve the article. I think I did. Yay.

The vast majority of reliable sources deal with the unexplained part of the gender wage gap. Again, the vast majority of sources state that discrimination, bias, or stereotypes explain parts, most, or all of the unexplained part of gender wage gap. If you can provide studies which dispute this, please do. However, we need reliable sources which dispute other reliable sources. Not you. The fact that you ("you" as in no one but yourself) constantly dispute viewpoints advanced by reliable sources, seems to be a bit of a problem. I added tons of peer-reviewed research to an article which was severely biased (see other editors' objections) and taken care of the most blatant violations of WP:NPOV. If I understand you correctly, you object to the recent changes, the addition of other significant viewpoints, reliable sources, and the steps toward a neutral POV. I won't even address your other accusations, threats, and temper tantrums

Your argument was that the large section "Causes of the gender wage gap" focused too much on discrimination. My argument was that the section focuses on all significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, i.e., hours worked, maternity leave, occupational choice, occupational segregation, bias, motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium, wage entitlement, negotiating salaries, "danger wage premium." For your argument to be accurate (i.e., we focus too much on discrimination) we would have to delete all other sections which explore differences in human capital and life style and only leave those sections which explore bias and stereotypes (e.g., "Bias in favor of men"). Why you fail to understand this simple logic and see it as an attack on your race, I do not know. Perhaps some of the editors who have to deal with you over at the circumcision talk page, can explain. Good day. Sandynewton (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you wish to keep the above comment in that state before I initiate further administrative action? Blackworm (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's Becker?

This article only talks about 'empirical' research, and hardly no 'theoretical, mathematical' research.

I guess I remember that, Gary Becker, the Nobel laureate in economics, in his book 'A Treatise on the Family', wrote something very much about this topic, applying rigorously mathematical economic tools.

Somebody knows about this? Addding Becker would make balance between empirics and axiomatic theory.Cosfly (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I did add a Gary S. Becker study. See the section "Hours worked." Sandynewton (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Becker is also cited in a source discussing the motherhood penalty: "Becker’s (1985) “work effort” hypothesis is perhaps the best-known productivity explanation. According to Becker, mothers may in fact be less productive at work because they have dissipated their reserve of energy caring for their children. In an indirect attempt to evaluate this claim, Anderson et al. (2003) compare the motherhood wage penalty for mothers in different educational groups—high school dropouts, high school graduates, those with some college, and college graduates. They hypothesize that if jobs that require more education require more effort, then the motherhood wage penalty should be greater for mothers with higher levels of education." This view is not mentioned. Blackworm (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the sources that I provide is truly entertaining. Whenever I use it, you say it is irrelevant. Whenever you use it, you say it is the seat of truth. The quote continues: "Contrary to this prediction, Anderson and colleagues found that mothers who were high school graduates actually experienced the largest wage penalty. They interpret this nonmonotonic relationship between level of education and the magnitude of the wage penalty as evidence contradicting productivity explanations of the motherhood wage penalty." Why is it that you only pick the quotes that advance your viewpoint (i.e., the motherhood penalty is fiction and has nothing to do with the gender wage gap)? You are free to add reliable sources to the section "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium." I provided peer-reviewed research and you can quote from it. But haven't you been arguing that this study which was published in the American Journal of Sociology and featured in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Businessweek, The Washington Post, Examiner etc. is "disputed" and "irrelevant"? Or is it just "disputed" and "irrelevant" when I sue it? Anyway. Please try to avoid misrepresentations and misquotations of the sources (see OECD report and O'Neil study) so I don't have to clean up the mess again. Thank you. Sandynewton (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm "free" to do it. I suggest you read WP:WFTE, then WP:NPOV again. No, I have not argued the things you say I argue, and your continued lies merit no further attention. Blackworm (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, please do read up on WP:NPOV. Please read the parts about reliable sources and due weight as you seem to have trouble with them. As for WP:WFTE, have I not been cleaning up your mess, your misrepresentations of sources and your lies again and again? [3][4] Have I not just corrected your misrepresentation of a quote? Several editors have complained about the lack of references [5] and severe bias of the article before I started editing. You did you best to silence them with emotional rants about an "education gap" and how "gaps" are not seen as problematic when men are concerned [6][7]. I have addressed all those legitimate complaints. I have been addressing your endless and disruptive complaints although you simply want to remove reliable sources and significant viewpoints, and return to a version of the article with was in clear violation of most Wikipedia policies (as several editors have pointed out to you in the past). You have been disruptive for a very long time. This cannot continue. Sandynewton (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Another unjustified tag

Loodog has once again tagged the article. Why is this article "too long to read", Loodog? It is shorter that the articles about women's rights or men's rights or many other gender related articles. Who will decide which points are key points and which points are not? Why do you believe that the article consists of unreadable prose? What is a "standard section length" according to Wiki? What exactly displeases you about the spacing of this article? Sandynewton (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy. The tag is the benefit of the people who edit this article with so much care. When the sections get this long, people start averting their reading gaze and give up on reading the article altogether. This article is 55kb, which is suggestive via WP:SIZERULE of being split just on prose size alone. Actually trying to read it, in my opinion, makes the case stronger. As a general rule, if a section can be scrolled to such than section breaks can't be seen, the section either needs to be shortened or split. This happens both in "trends" and in "explaining".

What we have is a long list of studies with excessive details and methodology of each being given, and each study explicitly mentioned instead of a simple summarizing sentence saying, "the majority[1][2][3][4] of studies generally found the result that X". Adding to the length issue is the article's adherence to MLA citation of writing the author's last name inline in the text. Wikipedia does everything via footnote - in-text citations with author, page number, or year are unnecessary.

It looks like you intend to add a good deal of material to the subject, which is good, but it won't all fit into one article (here). When the material has a lot of depth to be covered, the main article (this one) becomes a summary with more detail available in daughter articles. This enables the reader to get an overview without being forced through details. For example, you could take the section "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium", and leave behind only a one-paragraph summary of what's there and at the top of the section include a little tag like this:

Main article: Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium in male-female income disparity

where the article Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium in male-female income disparity contains all the detail that's been removed from this page. This approach, for example, has already been employed with Income gender gap, as this article is a daughter article branching from one section there.--Louiedog (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Motherhood penalty

It isn't clear why the section isn't entitled "Single-male penalty and single-female premium," either, except to further one POV. It isn't clear how it relates to the gender wage gap, except to suggest discrimination against women (when one could seemingly just as easily say single men are discriminated against, based on the same research). It's apparent to me the article now has massive POV issues, as it has apparently doubled in size with virtually all recent edits shifting the POV toward the view that anti-female discrimination is responsible for a large portion of wage differences. Undoing this damage may take quite a long time. Much puffery has been added, and much clearly non-NPOV narrative has been added, for example the "countering" with off-topic data of anything that suggests that part of the gap is due to men working more and devoting more of their lives to work.

Sadly, I haven't been able to monitor this huge influx of prose with large numbers of studies summarized. I've been too busy with work. I suggest a POV-tag on the article until it can be sorted through. Blackworm (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from your incessant POV-pushing. The article is not entitled "Single-male penalty and single-female premium," because there is no research to suggest such a thing after controlling for all variables which influence pay. It relates to the gender wage gap as it shows that a mother is less likely to get a job or a job interview than a father with similar human capital factors. Once more I would like to as you: Woudl you like to make the argument that discrimination if hiring has nothing to do with the gender wage gap? A "POV-issue" is certainly not a problem here as almost all research out there suggests that a large part of the gender wage gap is due to discrimination, both conscious and unconscious. You have also suggested that the peer-reviewed, published research should be removed (Helman et al, study) because the "claims" as well as the journal (The Academy of Management Journal) seem "dubious" to you. Hence, I suggest we not not follow your advise and forgo the POV-tag. Sandynewton (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"When the sections get this long, people start averting their reading gaze and give up on reading the article altogether." This is your opinion unless you have a way of knowing what "people" think (i.e., you can read minds). Please be so kind to write that it is *your* opinion rather than a universally accepted truth. "Actually trying to read it, in my opinion, makes the case stronger." In [your] opinion is the important part here. For instance, the article on circumcision is much longer that this article although the gender wage gap concerns more people and has a far greater meaning for concepts like social justice, gender equality etc. If you wish to tell me that we as editors can tag articles as we see fit, I am happy to hear this and will make use of this as I am one of the editors who really edits this Wiki article with much care.

"excessive details and methodology" It is very important to mention methodology as many of the editors who deny the existence of the gender wage gap (see your insistence that there is no gender wage gap but an "education gap") do so on the basis of methodological concerns. For instance, a sentence in the lead says that the gender wage gap does not control for human factor variables. Hence, it is particularly important to mention if and how studies control for these differences in human capital (experience, education, etc.). If you wish to shorten the article, I suggest you begin with claims made by Mr. Farrell hence his "findings" are not the results of any research at all. Removing peer-reviewed, published research may be something you wish to do (see Hekman et al. study), but your POV-pushing has to stop at some point.

"the article's adherence to MLA citation of writing the author's last name inline in the text" Yes, I agree that some of the citations have to be changed and handles via footnote. I agree. And I will see to it as soon as I can. Sandynewton (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"This enables the reader to get an overview without being forced through details. For example, you could take the section "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium", and leave behind only a one-paragraph summary of what's there and at the top of the section include a little tag like this" The section is relatively short and contains vital information. If I were to write a separate article for "motherhood penalty" and a separate one for "fatherhood penalty", readers would have to read through even more irrelevant information (i.e., long comparisons between mothers and childless women and comparison between fathers and childless men).

Once again: It is quite obvious that you support the notion that the gender wage gap is a myth. Okay. But 95% of research do not agree with you. In fact, one could argue that this article is biased in favor of your POV rather than the "POV" that the gender wage gap exists even after controlling for all variables. Hence, it is really POV-pushing on your side that you keep insisting that the parts that are in support of the gender wage gap be shortened or removed. This article features pretty much everything that has been set forth against the gender wage gap but it does not even begin to feature everything that has been found in support of the gender wage gap. Ergo: I ask you once more to stop with you POV-pushing. Thank you. Sandynewton (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how you consider the subsection "relatively short" as it is currently among the longest if not the longest subsection in the article. Please explain. Blackworm (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And here you seem to be going further than saying that the information ("[...] comparisons between mothers and childless women and comparison between fathers and childless men") is "irrelevant" in the context of this article, but that it would be irrelevant in general in Wikipedia articles. Am I misinterpreting your comment?

In any case, I assert that the phrases "motherhood penalty" and "fatherhood premium" are comparing precisely those values prima facie. For example, the Ridgeway&Correll source cited in the section also says, "In support of this analysis, recent experiments have shown that simply adding a phrase such as “has a two-year-old child” to a woman’s resume reduces evaluators’ estimates of her competence, her suitability for hiring and promotion, and the wages she should be paid." Now I ask you, what are they comparing with the word "reduces?" Is it the childless woman on the resume and the woman with child on the resume? I think it is. Another example seems clear from the title of one of the references: "Has the price of motherhood declined over time? A cross-cohort comparison of the motherhood wage penalty." What do they mean "the price of motherhood," the price over fatherhood? Note also the Budig paper, cited by R&C and entitled, "The Wage Penalty for Motherhood." It begins, "Motherhood is associated with lower hourly pay, but the causes of this are not well understood. Mothers may earn less than other women because [....]"<http://courses.washington.edu/pbafadv/TheWagePenaltyforMotherhood.pdf> Do you concede the point, that this information (comparing women who have children to childless women) is far from irrelevant, but in fact is central to the concept expressed in this subsection? If so, please forgive my skepticism as to your interpretation of the other sources, especially those in this section you have brought and summarized, but I feel it justified given this apparently grave error in interpreting and summarizing the sources in this case.

Again, perhaps the problem is the phrasing; would you accept starting with "Male-female disparity of outcome on YRFT wages of becoming a parent" and working from there? Blackworm (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is relatively short if you look at the amount of research which is available. According to Wiki policy editors are supposed to give "due weight" to a significant viewpoint in proportion to the prominence of that viewpoint. So there you are, Blackworm.

Yes, you are misinterpreting my comment. Funny how things are sometimes, right? Since this is an article about the gender wage gap it is indeed irrelevant to compare the pay of women with the pay of other women (as the OECD does to investigate the "family gap").The information itself is very much relavant and important, but not in the context of the gender wage gap.

Blackworm, once again, we should look at the research rather than your understanding of terms, okay? Correll compares the pay and career prospects of women and men, not women and women. This is made perfectly clear in the article.

The OECD findings do not include the United States since the US were not included in the investigation (perhaps because data was not available). Please see page 107 and 108 and see for yourself that the US are not included in chart 2.8 and that the text below says: "Overall, these findings on the family wage gap seem consistent with the existing literature, in which a significant impact of children on women’s pay is generally found in the United Kingdom and the United States (see Korenman and Neumark, 1992, and Waldfogel, 1995, 1998) but little effect is found in countries of continental Europe (Harkness and Waldfogel, 1999, for Germany, Finland and Sweden, and Datta Gupta and Smith, 2002, for Denmark) with the notable exception of Austria (Gregoritsch et al., 2000)." Ergo: Yes, there is a significant impact of children on women's wages in the US (and the UK). Blackworm, please be so kind to remove the sentence from the article. Also I ask you kindly to read the sources and then start rewriting the article. Thank you.

The section is entitled "Motherhood penalty" and "Fatherhood premium." We might rename the section if you find enough reliable sources which state that a) mothers receive more pay than equally qualified fathers, that b) employers do not lower their quality standards for fathers and raise their standards for mothers, c) mothers do not get penalized in competence judgements and fathers do not get a bonus in competence judgements etc. Once you do that, we might discuss this again. Of cource, something like "Male-female disparity of outcome on YRFT wages of becoming a parent" is just ridiculous. Sandynewton (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sad that you dismiss my suggestion as "ridiculous." Could you expand on why it is?

As I've pointed out, with sources, the literature on the motherhood penalty clearly indicates that it is a penalty vs. non-motherhood, i.e. being a childless women. This, despite what some studies choose to compare. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but more than half the section already makes that specific comparison, and you yourself quote a section making that comparison above.

So we return to the crucial question, what is the relationship of the motherhood penalty concept as discussed and reflected in sources to the male-female income disparity in the U.S.? None of the section, as written, makes that link. Blackworm (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Blackworm. I did not mean to dismiss anything. Okay. Let's see. Your suggestion is a new title: "Male-female disparity of outcome on YRFT wages of becoming a parent." First, the title is long and very confusing. Second, the outcomes of becoming a parent are a penalty for women and a premium for men. Why not say it? Third, the sources use the terms "motherhood penalty" and "fatherhood premium." These terms are very common in this context and they are very descriptive. "Male-female disparity of outcome on YRFT wage of becoming a parent," is something I hear for the very first time to describe the motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium.

Blackworm, I am not quite sure what you mean. The Correll study compares the pay of men with women, i.e., mothers with fathers. The rest of the research says that a) mothers are held to a higher standard (e.g., Fuegen et al.) and b) "people report less interest in hiring, promoting, and educating working moms relative to working dads and childless employees" (Cuddy, Fisle and Glick, p. 701). I really don't know what else to tell you if you believe that this is irrelevant to this article.

The relationship, as pointed out by all the sources is that a) fathers receive a pay premium while mothers receive a pay panalty, b) that employers and raters raise the standard for a specific subgroup of women, i.e., mothers, while they lower the standard for a specific subgroup of men, i.e., fathers, and that c) people are less interested in hiring, promoting, and education women compared to men. I tried to provide pdf files for as many studies as I could. Feel free to read them.

I would like to ask you why you think that the POV-tag is justified, Blackworm? Sandynewton (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually discussing the title, I was hoping for a basis on which to begin discussion for a subsection on a relevant topic. Re: "the outcomes of becoming a parent are a penalty for women and a premium for men." It's a "wage penalty" and possibly a "wage premium" according to these sources. (Otherwise, we non-neutrally suggest that overall, having children is a boon to men and a curse for women.) The Correll study you mention in fact compares childless women to mothers, then childless men to fathers, and then compares these two effects. That study begins:

"Survey research finds that mothers suffer a substantial wage penalty, although the causal mechanism producing it remains elusive. The authors employed a laboratory experiment to evaluate the hypothesis that status-based discrimination plays an important role and an audit study of actual employers to assess its real-world implications. In both studies, participants evaluated application materials for a pair of same-gender equally qualified job candidates who differed on parental status. [...]" [Emphasis mine.] [8]

The question is, how does this relate to the overall gender wage difference? It seems related, but the authors don't comment at all on its relation and it's very difficult for us to assess the weight of the material on this topic, the overall gender wage difference as a result. Can we agree on that before moving on? Blackworm (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to research on the motherhood penalty and the fatherhood premium, yes, overall and on average (meaning there can be individual exceptions to the rule), having children results in a wage premium for men and a wage penalty for women. I provided one or more high quality sources for each claim in the section, the section reflects the current consensus among researchers, and thus, there is certainly no POV issue here.

The Correll study uses a laboratory experiment, and audit study, and multivariate analysis. The result is this: "The laboratory experiment found that mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. The audit study showed that actual employers discriminate against mothers, but not against fathers."

Correll states that the "results of this study have implications for understanding some of the enduring patterns of gender inequality in paid work." The study relates to the article because it showed that real employers discriminate against mothers.

I generally don't agree with your intention to remove peer-reviewed research which has been featured in most major media outlets. However, I can understand your concern about the length of the section. I will try to shorten it as soon as I can. Sandynewton (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a frivolous section that doesn't belong in this article. I think WP:HTRIV is most applicable here unless we'd like to include a section on the price of tea in China as well. I'm well aware of concerns about OR and, at the moment, I don't have time to find literature to support plain common sense, but this section is really the tail wagging the dog. Women are, statistically speaking, overwhelmingly more likely to be single mothers than men are likely to be single fathers. Working fathers are also much more likely to have a wife at home to handle his domestic life (ie the children) and free him up for focus on work while also making him a more stable employee who needs to consider his family's stability when making career decisions like changing companies or pursuing additional education. Worrking mothers are not likely to have a stay at home father for a number of reasons, including that women generally want to "marry up" and wouldn't want a "Mr. Mom" (aka "deadbeat dad" or "lazy bum") that earned less than them. Coming back to WP:HTRIV I fail to see how these anecdotal common sense "findings" tie directly into the actual wage gap that is the subject of this article because, frankly, what sort of person discloses their parental status on a resume? I see a whole lot of noise here that amounts to little more than a complex restatement of the fact that "when job applicants disclose, or create the impression of, significant other non-work obligations, personal or professional, employers don't view them as favorably when hiring or determining salaries." While I guess some may view this result as anecdotally interesting, or even surprising, claiming it is a factor in the gender wage gap is pure supposition and not supported by any real studies of actual results unless we accept on faith that mothers will, foolishly, always, or at least generally, volunteer the fact that they have children on their resume or during interviews -- without being asked (which was exactly the case in this study) with the obvious and implicit inference that they have a conflict of interest with fully committing themselves to the job. In the real world, adults who are applying for jobs know they shouldn't disclose having massive personal claims on their time when trying to get hired and someone who does is explicitly stating that I will put my personal life above my work in the mind of the hiring company. This is so blatantly obvious that it begs the question, did the researchers here fail to see this clear causal link, which makes perfect business sense, or did they have a broader agenda in stating that the "causes for these results are unclear" and implying it might be discrimination thereby making the study itself more noteworthy and interesting and opening the way for further research funding for the ocean of money thrown at studies on discrimination against women.--Cybermud (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Coming back to WP:HTRIV I fail to see how these anecdotal common sense "findings" tie directly into the actual wage gap that is the subject of this article because, frankly, what sort of person discloses their parental status on a resume?" I think this study is worth keeping because various other studies, taken into consideration, tells us something important. If you look at the study by Glicke et. al, for example, you'll see that the perceived warmth of women decreases after they have children, while their competence remains the same. Men, on the other hand, do not suffer this perception of decreased competence. This is alarming because both men and women have maternal and paternal leave. The matter of having children, therefore, is therefore no longer a "private issue" that remains up to the parents to disclose or not once they are hired. Taken into consideration that individuals may disclose whether or not they do have other obligations besides work when they are being hired, and the face that women are perceived as having lost competence once it is made clear that they do have children, this is relevant to the discussion of a motherhood penalty. Скептик (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources which say that research on the motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium is "frivolous" and that this research is silly because employers have no way of knowing about their employees' parental status, please include them in the article. To quote Wiemer Salverda, Brian Nolan and Timothy Smeeding: "The motherhood penalty or family gap, and its contribution to the gender pay gap, is widely confirmed in studies using microdata." (The Oxford handbook of economic inequality). If we focus on the motherhood penalty which remains after controlling for all human capital variables, then the section "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium" is a perfect representation of the status of research on this subject. Sandynewton (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Motherhood premium"

This huge section makes a mockery of WP:NPOV policy with its one-sided view, especially in light of reliable sources claiming the opposite view (absolutely no countering view was presented until my recent edit). It needs heavy verification of sources, as the editor adding these sources is known to misinterpret or re-interpret them, and needs much trimming to deal with issues of undue weight. I've tagged the section. Blackworm (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This "huge" section simply reflects the current state of research. There is no research which suggests that mothers are favored over equally qualified fathers. All studies find the reverse to be true. Your recent edit has nothing to do with the subject because it compares childless women with mothers (i.e., women and women). The section, however, is about the comparison between equally qualified mothers (i.e., women) and fathers (i.e., men) and all studies on this subject find that fathers receive a "fatherhood premium" while equally qualified mothers receive a "motherhood penalty." Once again I ask you to refrain from your incessant POV-pushing and your shrill demands that peer-reviewed, published research be removed because you find the journal or the claims "dubious" or because you do not like the findings. Sandynewton (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I find it very interesting that you complain about sections without a "countering view" only when it suits you. Up until recently, sections like "Hours worked" and "Occupational choice" had no "countering view" yet you did not complain about that. I wonder why that is?

Should you ever accuse me of "misinterpreting" or "re-interpreting" sources, I will have to make your attacks known to the administrators. Anyone who has read the "discussion" about the Hekman et al. study and your spurious arguments to have it removed knows that sometimes you do not understand a study and instead of trying harder you start accusing people of "misinterpreting" and "re-interpreting" research. Please refrain from your attacks on editors as well as from your blatant POV-pushing. Sandynewton (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a "motherhood penalty" implies a penalty of a woman with children versus a woman without children. I object to your edit that you added after the OECD quote I added, which diminishes the statement by implying that it is somehow irrelevant, and that without any reliable sources.

Your accusations of POV-pushing and other attacks will be reported. I've had enough. Blackworm (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations of "misinterpreting and re-interpreting sources" and "furthering a POV" will be reported. I've had it.

Can you explain to me why you think that comparing women with women is relevant for the gender wage gap? Can you do that? Exactly. This is why the Correll study compares the pay and job prospects of fathers and mothers, i.e., men and women... because the gender wage gap is about the comparison between ... men and women. Not women and women. The study as well as the articles about the study compare... men and women. No, really. Feel free to check. If you can provide a study that says that mothers are paid more that equally qualified fathers, please do so. But the finding that mothers are not paid less that childless women is irrelevant. Therefore, I urge you to remove the sentence as well as the unfounded POV-tag. If you refuse to do so, I would like to ask you to explain in detail why you feel that the finding that mothers are penalized and fathers are favored should be removed from an article about the gender wage gap. Sandynewton (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth with your last sentence - what did I specifically say that leads you to believe I want the finding removed? Blackworm (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You did not? How fortunate for truth and justice! It was something about your statement "This huge section makes a mockery of WP:NPOV policy with its one-sided view, especially in light of reliable sources claiming the opposite view (absolutely no countering view was presented until my recent edit)." which gave the impression that you wish to shorten or remove the finding. Since the OECD supported the finding that there is a motherhood penalty in the US and the UK, please try harder to find reliable sources which claim that there is no motherhood penalty. Thank you. Sandynewton (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pure incivility without substance. You are arguing a straw man. Until you are able to address things actually said, rather than invent new disputes (e.g. "claim there is no motherhood penalty") then there is little to discuss here. Blackworm (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, I did address what you actually said. However, you started accusing me of incivility because I wrote that the forceful way in which you expressed your concerns about the POV ("mockery of WP:NPOV" etc.) were interpreted by me as a wish to shorten and/or remove the the section.

You wrote: "[...] especially in light of reliable sources claiming the opposite view." This "opposite view" is that there is no motherhood penalty or fatherhood premium. You have failed to provide these sources. Even if you were able to find reliable sources which confirm that there is no motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium (personally, I have never encountered such a study, but I do not pretend to be all-knowing), you would soon realize that for each study which says that the motherhood penalty is a myth, there are 50 studies which say that the motherhood penalty is a reality. Thus, if we wish to follow Wiki policy about weight and undue weight we would still be obligated to give much more weight to the position 1 (the motherhood penalty is real).

Once again I would like to ask you why you feel that the POV tag is justified? Sandynewton (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a wish to shorten the section. Do not exaggerate (paraphrasing, "he wants to remove the section!") because other editors scanning this discussion assume such claims to be precise and accurate. Also, you force the other editor to correct you, and you fail to address what was actually said (contrary to the repeated assertion above that you did address it), which is seen as incivil behaviour.

Actually, the "opposite view" is not what you write, the opposite view is that the motherhood penalty is not a significant cause of the gender wage difference. This study says (it's just one of the first off a cursory Google Scholar search), "We estimate a 10% motherhood wage penalty"[9]. Multiply that by the percentage of women holding full time year young jobs that are mothers, and that is the effect on wages. We would then proceed to calculate how much of the gender wage difference that drop in women's average FTYR wages represents. Even if we accept that the material is linked in the sources specifically to the gender wage gap and (it doesn't seem to be, and so I had to do some WP:OR above with my calculation just to discuss it here), it would not warrant the largest subsection of the "causes of the wage gap" section in my opinion. Blackworm (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your continued claims that the Correll study, for instance, is irrelevant to this article and your complaints about the POV (which is simply a perfectly neutral reflection of the current state of research on the subject) really do imply that you object to more than the section's length. Therefore, please refrain from your pointless threats and accusations.

The section indicates that there is a wage penalty form mothers and a wage premium for men. Therefore, the "opposite view" is that there is no wage penalty for mothers and no wage penalty for men. You have misrepresented the OECD report to advance this "opposite view." I had to clean up the mess. If you have reliable sources which state that the motherhood penalty or fatherhood premium is a myth or that the motherhood penalty is not a significant cause of the gender wage gap, please include them in the article.

We have a section in the article -- "Is there a danger wage premium?" -- which does not explain even the tiniest part of the gender wage gap. This particular viewpoint is only advanced by Mr. Farrell and perhaps a few other men's and fathers' rights activists but we should keep it because it is a significant viewpoint. Not true, but still significant. Besides, I am not particularly fond of deleting sourced material. You are. I am not. The research on the motherhood penalty and the fatherhood premium is extensive. Most importantly, studies like the Correll study have been featured in most major media outlets. So if we are to represent the viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, the "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium" section should be three times as long as the "Is there s danger wage premium section?" and it is.

However, I will see what can be done about the length of the section to accommodate your objections although I believe them to are unfounded. Again. Sandynewton (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you surmise that the topic of a danger wage premium does nothing to address the topic of income disparity? While on that subject the title for this section is POV and uses weasel words and should be changed. Secondly, the subsection on "fatherhood premium" should be removed altogether. None of the referenced sources imply any such "premium." All of them focus on a "marriage" premium (ie "married male" is not at all equal to "father.")--Cybermud (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Danger is negatively correlated with wages, i.e., the more danger a job entails the less you get paid, on average. However, I completely agree that we should keep the section "Is there a danger wage premium?" because Mr. Farrell's claim was published in a reliable source. I simply brought it up because Blackworm claimed that the motherhood penalty does not explain a significant portion of the gender wage gap when in fact it does. So I reminded him that the "danger wage premium" does not explain anything.

Anyway, the "weasel words" you speak of are quotes from studies which were published in peer-reviewed journals, i.e., reliable sources. The subject is certainly not POV because there are hundreds of studies about the motherhood premium and fatherhood penalty and they come to the same conclusions: In the US, on average, women are penalized for having children and men are advantaged by having children.

Actually the weasel words I was referring to are in the title of the section. "Is there a danger wage premium" should just be "Danger wage premium" rather than the current POV way to introduce the section. Take it out or leave it in but don't use a passive-aggressive title containing a rhetorical question to cast aspersions as to the validity of its content or inclusion in the article before one reads it. If there are legitimate questions as to its validity put them in the prose. Rhetorical questions are bad style and non-encyclopedic. If there actually is sustained criticism of the idea (rather than the normal disagreement associated with almost any gender issue) name it "Danger Wage Controversy." The current title stinks.--Cybermud (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it was not clear that you were referring to the section "Danger wage premium." First, I did not pick the title "Is there a danger wage premium?" The title was in the article long before I started editing. So I have nothing to do with this title which you (and that is you and nobody else) see as "passive-aggressive." The U.S. Bureau of Labor and dozens of studies (that I know of) about wage compensation for risks say that there is no danger wage premium or that the compensation is negative because the market is not perfectly transparent and competitive . Therefore, the title "Is there a danger wage premium?" seems more appropriate than the title "Danger wage premium." But if you insist on "Danger wage premium" (and can provide one or two reasons for this), I will not object to your edits. Sandynewton (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The marriage premium is in fact a fatherhood premium. Please read the studies before you comment on them. The fact that men experience income increases after the birth of a child even after controlling for human capital variables is well documented. Sandynewton (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are referring to studies that are not cited I did read the ones that were there. Married men are not necessarily fathers and the studies all used the phrase "Marriage premium" for fathers not "Fatherhood Premium." Your unilateral assertion that they are one and the same or that your non-academically used name for the phenomenon is OR, just like the implicit implication that the "Marriage Premium" (for men) and "Motherhood Penalty" (for women) are two sides of the same coin. Can you point me to the study that says non-married father's earn more than single men or as much as married fathers?--Cybermud (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "fatherhood premium" gets 20 hits on Google Scholar, "marriage premium" gets almost 700. I'm so glad someone else is here to help with the massive WP:NPOV and WP:V violations that are occuring. Blackworm (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm has been arguing that the section "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium" is too long. So I tried to shorten the section [10]. The part about the fatherhood penalty used to read: "While research shows a negative association between motherhood and wages as well as motherhood and competence judgments, virtually all studies find a positive correlation between fatherhood and wages as well as competence judgements. Research on the “marriage premium” for men’s wages, one of the most robust empirical findings in labor economics, suggests that fathers experience advantages in labor market outcomes [...]" The fatherhood premium was discovered in studies about the marriage premium for men. If you wish I can add more studies to the section.

The point is that - on average and as a general rule - fathers experience more advantages in labor market outcomes than non-fathers and mothers. I never claimed that "non-married fathers earn more than married fathers." I am willing to repeat once again: The fatherhood premium (i.e., the finding that fathers than non-fathers and considerably more than mothers even after controlling for differences in human capital) was discovered in studies about the marriage premium for men, meaning that the marriage premium part is irrelevant. If you insist, I can create an extra section about the the effect on marriage on men's and women's wages. It is quote similar to the effects of parenthood, i.e., a penalty for women and a premium for men. So if you want an additional section about marriage as a possible cause of the gender wage gap, please let me know.

Also it is obvious that the motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium are not the same. The former is a penalty and concerns women. The latter is a premium and concerns men. I never claimed they were the same. Your accusations that I did is insulting and uncivil. I made sure to provide one or more reliable sources for each sentence in the section (and everywhere else) so if you have trouble with the results of the studies, please take your complaints about the "non-academic use" to the researchers. You will find most of them at Stanford University. All sentences in this section are basically quotes. Sandynewton (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Blackworm. "Danger wage premium" gets 1 hit (not even a real one) on Google Scholar. Yet we have an entire section devoted to it. So what is your point? The marriage premium encompasses the marriage penalty for women, the marriage premium for men, the effects of marriage on the wages of minorities etc. This section is about the effects of parenthood on the gender wage gap, i.e., the motherhood penalty and the gender wage premium. If you insist I can add another section about the effect of marriage on women's and men's earnings. Cybermud seems to have a problem with the "ocean of money thrown at studies on discrimination against women."

Editors have been complaining about the severe bias long before I started editing. You did your best to silence them. Sources like "menstuff.org" were used. Large sections were unsourced. I have included dozens (or hundreds) of reliable primary and secondary sources which advance significant points of view in proportion to their prominence. The fact that you keep insisting that famous peer-reviewed economic journals are "obscure" and the studies published in those journals and featured in the New York Times and other major media outlets are "dubious and unprovable," says more about you and your credibility as an editor than about WP:NPOV. Also what is this with WP:V? Are you out of other "objections"? Sandynewton (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Source your lies (e.g. "keep insisting that famous peer-reviewed economic journals are 'obscure' [...].") with difflinks, and/or stop the personal attacks. If you wish, I'm willing to enter guided mediation with you on our most pressing disputes; this might help focus your line of argument to content rather than editors. Blackworm (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Here [11] you insist against all evidence that the David Hekman et al. study (2009) (the one that has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Golden Globe etc.) has "dubious and unprovable" claims and that the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Journal is "obscure." The funny thing is that you claim that you have acknowledged your mistakes below ("obscure"), yet here you are denying them.

The person who seems hurl accusations without any proof and attack editors is you. I focus on the content.

Anyway. All I am trying to say is that your "objections" to maximum reliable primary and secondary sources usually have a very shaky basis. The pressing "dispute" is about your claim that the Correll study (the one published in the American Journal of Sociology and featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Businessweek, Examiner etc.) is irrelevant. So tell me once again and please use reliable sources why you believe that the motherhood penalty is irrelevant. To quote Wiemer Salverda, Brian Nolan and Timothy Smeeding: "The motherhood penalty or family gap, and its contribution to the gender pay gap, is widely confirmed in studies using microdata."

(The Oxford handbook of economic inequality). Sandynewton (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandynewton, both times you referenced my edits it was in ways that seemed intellectually dishonest though I am going to assume good faith and that you simply didn't read them carefully. You said

I never claimed that "non-married fathers earn more than married fathers."

but I never claimed you claimed that. What I said was "Can you point me to the study that says non-married father's earn more than single men or as much as married fathers?." This is precisely germane to the topic at hand. While the studies you quote may use the term "fatherhood premium" it is clear that what they really mean is "married father" at most. The edits you have made obscure this critical distinction. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. Father is not equal to married or married father and the broad generalization that they are is very upsetting. In regards to whether you should add additional details to clarify this, yes, that would be one way to fix it. Another would be to leave it close to how it is and call it what it is, a "marriage premium for men" that, if supported by sources (I'm not sure), gets larger with kids, and stop simply saying "fatherhood premium," as this is misleading. You also wrote

"Also it is obvious that the motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium are not the same. The former is a penalty and concerns women. The latter is a premium and concerns men. I never claimed they were the same. Your accusations that I did is insulting and uncivil."

Once again, mischaracterizing what I said. I specifically said, your edits conveyed "the implicit implication that the "Marriage Premium" (for men) and "Motherhood Penalty" (for women) are two sides of the same coin. Again, all fathers are not married fathers no matter how much someone might like to believe men can't raise a child without a wife, they do, and none of these studies say they get a "premium" for it. This is a serious deficiency with all these studies and probably led to the result that they found what they were looking for, but I digress. Studying the economics of single fathers (whose ex-partners probably don't pay child support) is not something these studies ever touched nor did they ever approach the topic of divorced non-custodial fathers paying child support. Again, all fathers are not married fathers. Before I stop, another issue is the vast majority of men don't work in jobs that lend themselves to submitting a resume. Resume's are for professional jobs (though this is changing) which the vast majority of men (or women) do not have. This is like using the pay of CEO's and the top 1% of men to skew the income data and obscure the fact that if you exclude elite males that are out of the league of normal men as much as they are for normal women the incomes of the vast majorities of wage earning men and women have achieved parity.--Cybermud (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh.. meant to add, regarding your claim that you are essentially "just including quotes." That's not ok if you cherry pick quotes and take them out of context... such as to say there is a "fatherhood premium" by leaving out the all the study predicates that require the father to be married and don't, actually require him to even be a father only married (and possibly in a professional, non-blue-collar job.)--Cybermud (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I Don't Understand

What objection of mine are you addressing with this edit? [12] Please quote my exact words, and refrain from changing what it is precisely you are saying in your response. Otherwise, be humble, admit that you are letting emotions rather than rational argument drive your responses, and admit mistakes where you make them. You fundamentally seem to disregard my objections to material and invent new objections. I suggest, humbly, that this is a difficulty in communication we may we have be having owing to your inexperience in a forum with other educated, intelligent people such as yourself, and an environment where assuming good faith is the rule of the house. Please, for the sake of an environment of collaboration and harmony with other editors, take a moment to step back and assess what you have done for this article (which on the whole, is very positive) and what you are harming to your longer-term credibility as an editor with your behaviour and attempts to marginalize objections to your edits. Check my history, it seems similar to yours. Blackworm (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let me take a moment and asses what I have done for this article:

• added peer-reviewed research, articles in major media outlets, several new significant viewpoints, famous systematic decompositions of the gender wage gap;
• took care of the most blatant violations of WP:NPOV;
• corrected some of your misrepresentations of studies such as this one [13] and this one [14];
• pointed out unreliable sources such as "menstuff.org" which must have slipped your attention for some reason;
• helped to improve the article;

The article has been a Start-Class article. Now it is a B-Class article. I will help to improve the article in the future.

I believe that the "difficulty in communication" is due to your habit of misrepresenting the sources, "disputing" viewpoints advanced by reliable sources, demanding a "consensus" for other editors' edits while not demanding consensus for your own edits, constantly deleting material rather than adding material, writing semi-hysterical accusations and threats, etc.

I would be much more willing to let you lecture me on "credibility" if you were less inclined to misrepresent sources or object to peer-reviewed research because you think the claims are "dubious and unprovable," or argue that the term "gap" is biased and that "gaps" are not seen as problematic when men are concerned.

You are a Wiki editor. You are free to edit the article as long as your edits comply with Wiki policies.

I removed part of a sentence which was not specifically about the US but the average gender wage gap for all OECD nations after controlling for differences human capital. The edit left you unhappy. So I removed the entire paragraph to accommodate your objections. Sandynewton (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how confusing. This objection of mine was not about whether the article should state that Blau and Kahn state that 15% of the wage difference is due to unexplained factors or discrimination or whatever, as you have framed this dispute, but it was in fact over whether their statements apply to the U.S. in that instance; a claim I supported with a reasoned argument and you claim to "address" here while in fact leaving the exact source of my objection ("in all OECD countries [i.e, including the U.S.]") intact. Yes, indeed, I really don't understand. Blackworm (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very confusing. The paragraph was about the 2002 OECD report. Blau and Kahn have nothing to do with it. The OECD found that differences in characteristics such as work experience, education, occupation, tenure, and hours worked are now of minor importance in OECD countries while the unexplained portion of the wage gap averages 15% of male earnings. I removed the 15% part because it is an OECD average rather than a specific US figure. And then I removed the entire paragraph.

Why you confuse the Blau and Kahn study with the OECD report, I do not know. Sandynewton (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But you don't care, do you... as long as your disputed material remains in the article. I am correct in assuming that you won't respond until I begin repairing the POV mess that has been made? Blackworm (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I care very much about your insistence that the article should once again violate WP:NPOV. Several other editors have pointed out that the article was biased before I started editing, yet you deflected their perfectly justified objections with rants about an "education gap" and your belief that gaps are not seen as problematic when men are concerned. The article complies more or less with WP:NPOV for the first time since 2007. But there is always room for improvement. And I care very much about improving this article. I think everyone can tell. I have been the one correcting your misrepresentations of sources after all.

By the way, I have been taking a much needed break from this article or rather the "discussion with you." As a major contributor to the article, I was advised to do that once in a while. Yet, your agitated screeds keep bringing me back.

I will try to shorten the section motherhood "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium" when I come back. In general, I will try to shorten sections. In the meantime, I would like to ask you to take a look at the John Dencker study (2008) and tell me how it is related to the gender wage gap. Sandynewton (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not a major contributor to this article, you have essentially re-written the article, and have drawn absolutely no support for your edits, while drawing objections from three different editors. Your repeated bald-face lies concerning previous discussion, and concerning me personally are also not going unnoticed. Editwarring your changes in while shouting down editors disputing your changes is not an acceptable manner of editing, as I'm sure you will soon learn. Until we address your incivil behaviour, discussion of this content cannot continue. Needless to say, currently the majority of your edits do not have consensus, and only remain due to your persistent editwarring. Blackworm (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re "no support for your edits": Sometimes silence means that other editors are content, and I do not think it would be reasonable to assess the current state of the article without some form of RFC with significant discussion from uninvolved editors. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you call the reams of text on this page, with three editors opposing some edits, "silence?" And how is one supposed to discuss this in a climate of constant personal attacks, blatant discriminatory comments, repeated falsehoods, editwarring the new content into the article, and failure to address the content-based arguments of other editors? Do you approve of all of these actions, or deny that they exist or that they are a problem, as your silence on them would seem to indicate? Blackworm (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am a major contributor to this article. My contributions helped take care of the most blatant violations of WP:NPOV from the article.

The three different editors are actually two different editors and those editors usually say that the peer-reviewed research about the mother hood penalty and fatherhood premium should be removed because it is "trivial" (according to Cybermud) or because it has "POV issues" (according to you). I repeat for the fifth or sixth time: The motherhood penalty and the fatherhood premium and their contributions to the gender wage gap are widely confirmed by hundreds of reliable sources.

Once again: You have been caught misrepresenting sources, i.e., using them to tell bald-faced lies. Shall I present the diffs? Again? I had to clean up the mess again and again. You have been caught ignoring other editors' complaints that the article as it was before I started editing had severe bias [15]. I have taken care of several other editors' complaints: The lack of citations [16], severe bias [17] [18] and even individual requests for specific authors [19]. I am the one who responds to other editors' complaints and tries to help as much as I can. I even respond to complaints such as yours even though all you write over and over again is how reliable sources create POV issues, how terms used in reliable sources (i.e. "motherhood penalty" and fatherhood premium") should be replaced with your creations (i.e., "Male-female disparity of outcome on YRFT wage of becoming a parent") and how "obscure" peer-reviewed economic journals are and how "dubious" the claims in peer-reviewed research. Yet, here I am addressing your "objection" again and again.

The claims of "editwarring" are as unfounded and unfair and disruptive as all of your other accusations. Check the editing history of the article. You have been deleting material like there is no tomorrow. All it did was restore a reference you deleted for God knows what reason [20], I took care of your misrepresentations of studies [21], and moved a paragraph which you placed in the lead - again, for God knows what reason [22].

Let me remind you once again: None of the other edits have a consensus. None. Several editors tried to point out that the article was biased. You did your best to silence them or you ignored them. Sandynewton (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly not silent. Again: The three editors are actually two. Their "objections" are objections to Wiki policies, i.e., they object to reliable sources, for instance, and call research published in peer-reviewed journals and featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe "trivial" (Cybermud) or "dubious" (you).

Half of what you write is unfounded and emotional accusations. They have lost all meaning by now. There is nothing "content-based" about your screeds.

But let us get to the point: What is it that you want? To remove reliable sources and add more of "menstuff.org"? To remove causes of the gender wage gap which have been confirmed in hundreds of studies? To reinstate the severe bias which other editors have pointed out to you? You complained about the length of the section "Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium" although it was in perfect proportion to the prominence of that viewpoint. I shortened the section. Now what do you want? Sandynewton (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. My comments are concise and focused on the material. Start citing diff links for your claims about what editors say about sources, and where editors have in your view "added more" unreliable sources, or strike out those remarks. I'd also advise you to stop repeating editors' claims after the editors have acknowledged mistakes in the assessment of sources (as I have for calling one source "obscure", for example). Then we may resume discussion of the disputed content. Blackworm (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you object to peer-reviewed research and to secondary sources like the New York Times and Washington Post and Golden Glove because you think that the peer-reviewed famous journal is "obscure" or that the results are "dubious" or do not address anything at all and simply claim that these sources are "disputed" (just because you dispute them) (notice that you do not seem to dispute anything involving Warren Farrell, your own questionable edits and sources like "menstduff.org"). No, you have never acknowledged your incessant and disruptive misrepresentations of sources or your mistakes. Not once. Your refusal to comply with non-negotiable Wikipedia policies and your disruptive screeds, are very serious. Something will have to be done about this soon. Sandynewton (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Do it then. Right now. Seek dispute resolution, I would be happy to participate. You're still repeating the "obscure" canard after I make it clear I was wrong in that instance just above. And I did acknowledge it at the time (two months ago, for crying out loud) by stating that if the source said what you said it did, I would accept it;[23] and I never repeated the claim again, contrary to your recent assertion that I "keep insisting" on it.[24] This is clear evidence of lying, and malice, and incivity. For the record, I no longer assume good faith in you, and will not until you take responsibility and fully apologize for these documented lies about me. So failing that, seek dispute resolution and help from trusted, uninvolved members of the community.

I don't object to research, I object to some of your 120+ recent edits that now dominate this article. Unless and until you are able to work with the editors here in a civil manner and find a consensus, or if unsatisfied, take your objections to dispute resolution, your comments are irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith. So please stop with this disruptive endless accusations and tell me why you object to the inclusion of the motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium as one cause of the gender wage gap. I ask you to please provide reliable sources for your objections and we will work this out. I remind you again that you have failed to work with other editors in the past and have refused to acknowledge their concerns about the article. My "120+" edits have taken care of the most blatant violations of WP:NPOV. My "120+" edits have included the most important decompositions of the gender wage gap as well as studies. My "120*" edits have improved this article and helped it reach B-Class.

Let me remind you that none of your edits have a "consensus." You seem to forget this for some reason.

Unless you can cite reliable sources or real reasons why you demand that very reliable primary and secondary sources be deleted, your work here looks extremely disruptive. Sandynewton (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeat: "[...] will not until you take responsibility and fully apologize for these documented lies about me." Blackworm (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

2009 Consad/Department of Labor Report

I found no mention of the report from last year by Consad, for the Department of Labor "An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women"? (Gender Wage Gap Final Report). I think the conclusions of the report should be mentioned here. It might fit under "Explaining the gender pay gap" or "Occupational Choice." I only bring it up now, because a few people have mentioned the report recently (eg Christina Hoff Sommers & Gordon E. Finley) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quxeot (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What Causes The Wage Gap and What Are the Proposed Solutions

After reading this article i am confused on what the cause of the wage gab is. If there is no clear consensis, than that fact should go in the introduction. Do woman get payed less than men if they work at the same company doing the same thing? If this is true why is this? The only explination that made sense to me was that woman tend to go to "woman jobs" becuase of cultural infuences from a yong age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.178.205 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The unsigned comment presupposes that the "disparity" is a "problem", i.e., that it needs to be solved. That is a very interesting viewpoint, and I'd certainly like to know which groups (or quotable individuals) support it. Also, it would be good to tell our readers if anyone is saying that it's not a problem (probably a conservative).

Moreover, the article reads at first glance like it's an open secret that the main reason for the disparity is gender discrimination; and the bulk of the article seems designed to prove this thesis. There are comments like "we accounted for all other factors, so what remains must be discrimination". (This is like assuming when all known environmental factors are taken into account for the black-white IQ gap, the remaining disparity must be racial, i.e., genetic. I personally consider this kind of process of elimination very shaky, and it probably violates WP:OR.)

Let's bring the main issue to the forefront. If there are prominent spokesmen (spokeswomen?) asserting that discrimination is the biggest (or most important) factor, let us spell it out. Whose point of view is this? What evidence - if any - do they give to support this POV? And what "remedies" do they suggest? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Marriage and "Fatherhood" premium

I edited the relevant section to remove POV and removed the NPOV tag, but now that I look at it.. what does a marriage premium for men have to do with the Male-female income disparity? This is a male vs. married male income disparity. I suppose it's marginally relevant, since I added a blurb to the effect that "some studies suggest having children increases this premium" but even that is still a men vs men income disparity. I'm in favor of removing this content altogether, but don't object to leaving it in. (and yes Sandy) I read all the cited sources before making this well-referenced change.--Cybermud (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I can see how this is relevant. Men get a "marriage premium" that women do not get upon marriage. To clarify, I've never questioned the relevance of including the section on the motherhood penalty (in spite of the fact that it could be called women vs. women.) Anything that depresses women's wages is germane to the income disparity between men and women. Calling the marriage premium a "fatherhood premium" significantly muddied the issue though and is not well supported in the already referenced sources (something I've discussed ad nauseum above.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Intensity of the debate

Is there (still) any debate over this issue, or any concept that the disparity is due to discrimination?

One of the most hotly debated and widely discussed sources of inequality is discrimination. [25]

The academic source cited above says so. Perhaps we should mention it in the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge sections "occupational choice" and "occupational segregation"

The sections "occupational segregation" and "occupational choice" overlap in content. The term "occupational segregation" is usually referred to as one of many causes of the gender pay gap. Occupational choice is discussed as one possible cause of occupational segregation rather than the gender pay gap. Thus, occupational choice is a sub-item of occupational segregation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) --corrected typo --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed this sentence from the lede of the article:

The main reasons cited for the disparity include the lingering effects of gender discrimination and personal inclination (e.g., men choose more dangerous jobs, women choose jobs with more flexible hours).

My reasons for deleting the sentence:

1) The sentence is unreferenced;

2) The sentence is misplaced as the second sentence of the entire article;

3) The term "personal inclination" should be replaced with "differences in individual and workplace characteristics" for NPOV;

4) The gender pay gap cannot be explained by the fact that men have more dangerous jobs. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out, the attributes of physically demanding or dangerous jobs do not influence earnings [26]. Not only is it inaccurate to say that danger and physical demands explains parts of the gender pay gap, it is also WP:FRINGE. Warren Farrell seems to be the only one who argues that there is "danger wage premium" and that it can explain the gender pay gap;

5) Whether or not women choose lower-paying jobs because they want more workplace flexibility is highly controversial. The article includes on source that says that this might be true and three sources that say that it is a myth. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)