Pope Francis calls inequality of pay for women "a scandal"

[MissBarbara]

Pope decries 'scandal' of lower salaries for women

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis on Wednesday made an impassioned plea for an end to the salary gap between men and women, calling it "a scandal" that Christians should decisively reject.

"Why is it taken for granted that women must earn less than men? No! They have the same rights. The discrepancy is a pure scandal," he told tens of thousands of people at his general audience in St. Peter's Square.

Raising his voice for emphasis as he made some of his most forceful remarks on the subject to date, he said Christians should "decisively support the right to equal pay for equal work".

Women in the European Union were paid 16.4 percent less than men on average in 2013, according to statistics agency Eurostat, and United States Census Bureau data indicate women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, based on annual median salaries.

Francis has said he wants women to have a greater role in the Roman Catholic Church around the world and in the Vatican bureaucracy but he has said the "door is closed" to the possibility that women could become priests.

The Church teaches that women cannot become priests because Jesus willingly chose only men as his apostles. Advocates of a female priesthood reject this view, saying he was acting according the norms of his times.


http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/politics/3734168-pope-decries-scandal-lower-salaries-women

[Bexy]

While I kind of don't mind this new pope, it's quite clear that he is 1. not a woman 2. never worked a day in his life in the working world. As a woman who has worked several jobs I have never in my life encountered any instance in which I was paid less than my male counterparts, and this whole 'wage gap' I see as nothing other than the normal result of women taking more time off to take care of children. I would love to see hard factual pay slips of men and women in the exact same function and doing the exact same hours, where the woman is paid less than the man. 

[phtlc]

While I kind of don't mind this new pope, it's quite clear that he is 1. not a woman 2. never worked a day in his life in the working world. As a woman who has worked several jobs I have never in my life encountered any instance in which I was paid less than my male counterparts, and this whole 'wage gap' I see as nothing other than the normal result of women taking more time off to take care of children. I would love to see hard factual pay slips of men and women in the exact same function and doing the exact same hours, where the woman is paid less than the man. 

I'd be curious to see that myself. Everywhere I have ever worked had equal pay for equal work, yet I keep hearing about this gender gap. I can't say it doesn't exist at all, but I do always question how these things were measured. For example I saw a study comparing female vs male business grads, and it showed that males made more, but the study failed to distinguish between Finance/Accounting majors (relatively fewer females but higher paying) and say human resources majors (lots of females yet lower paying).

I always question studies and statistics. They always seem to say exactly what the group that conducted them wanted them to say and I have been part of the process so I have seen it first hand.


Just once I'd like a researcher to embark on a study and say "Gosh...the numbers just don't support my hypothesis"

[MissBarbara]

While I kind of don't mind this new pope, it's quite clear that he is 1. not a woman 2. never worked a day in his life in the working world. As a woman who has worked several jobs I have never in my life encountered any instance in which I was paid less than my male counterparts, and this whole 'wage gap' I see as nothing other than the normal result of women taking more time off to take care of children. I would love to see hard factual pay slips of men and women in the exact same function and doing the exact same hours, where the woman is paid less than the man. 

For someone who demands facts of others, you base your own assertions exclusively on your personal experience, at one place and in one time. Seems contradictory to me.

Plus, in your jobs, did you see the exact salary data for every employee in the company, and analyze the data factoring in hours worked, experience, position, other compensation, and sex?

Finally, I'm not sure what the Pope's sex, or his experience in "the working world" (whatever that means) has to do with anything. Must one have precise, personal experience with a given subject in order to express an opinion on that subject?

[joan1984]

There ought to be a law requiring equal pay for equal work. Call your State legislator, and demand such a law be written and passed without delay.

[Well Behaved Lady]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1305052.htm

What it has to do with the discussion I'm not sure but the attached shows he did indeed work.

[MissBarbara]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1305052.htm

What it has to do with the discussion I'm not sure but the attached shows he did indeed work.

You're right. Whether the Pope "worked a day in his life in the working world" or not is completely irrelevant. The fact that he is a man is similarly relevant. 

[Lois]

The Pope is addressing the entire world.  I am sure gender pay differences in Europe, Canada and the USA is pretty rare these days.  However, I'm pretty certain that in most of the rest of the world it is still the norm.

[MissBarbara]

The Pope is addressing the entire world.  I am sure gender pay differences in Europe, Canada and the USA is pretty rare these days.  However, I'm pretty certain that in most of the rest of the world it is still the norm.

Exactly!

[joan1984]

So, why the ongoing reference to 78% or so in the U.S., as to women's salaries and men's salaries, that we see quoted endlessly, in the media and at KB? That number has been discredited numerous times, even as recently as when the White House was found to be paying women less than men two years ago.

It has been against the law for many many years to pay less for equal work in the United States due to being female, versus being male, for the same job, same hours, same results. One would not know it by the political claims during election years, but it is true, i want to say sine 1965? maybe earlier...

[Athos_131]

[MissBarbara]

So, why the ongoing reference to 78% or so in the U.S., as to women's salaries and men's salaries, that we see quoted endlessly, in the media and at KB? That number has been discredited numerous times, even as recently as when the White House was found to be paying women less than men two years ago.

It has been against the law for many many years to pay less for equal work in the United States due to being female, versus being male, for the same job, same hours, same results. One would not know it by the political claims during election years, but it is true, i want to say sine 1965? maybe earlier...

"In the U.S...."

[phtlc]

While I kind of don't mind this new pope, it's quite clear that he is 1. not a woman 2. never worked a day in his life in the working world. As a woman who has worked several jobs I have never in my life encountered any instance in which I was paid less than my male counterparts, and this whole 'wage gap' I see as nothing other than the normal result of women taking more time off to take care of children. I would love to see hard factual pay slips of men and women in the exact same function and doing the exact same hours, where the woman is paid less than the man. 

For someone who demands facts of others, you base your own assertions exclusively on your personal experience, at one place and in one time. Seems contradictory to me.

Barb, I think the point of the comment was to question a statistical finding which runs contrary to what one sees on a daily basis. This was exactly what I was saying, which was that some statistical "facts" merit at least some healthy degree of skepticism.

[Katiebee]

They merit a close look to see if they are actually measuring the same thing. An apples to oranges comparison of statistics is misleading at best.

[MissBarbara]

While I kind of don't mind this new pope, it's quite clear that he is 1. not a woman 2. never worked a day in his life in the working world. As a woman who has worked several jobs I have never in my life encountered any instance in which I was paid less than my male counterparts, and this whole 'wage gap' I see as nothing other than the normal result of women taking more time off to take care of children. I would love to see hard factual pay slips of men and women in the exact same function and doing the exact same hours, where the woman is paid less than the man. 

For someone who demands facts of others, you base your own assertions exclusively on your personal experience, at one place and in one time. Seems contradictory to me.

Barb, I think the point of the comment was to question a statistical finding which runs contrary to what one sees on a daily basis. This was exactly what I was saying, which was that some statistical "facts" merit at least some healthy degree of skepticism.

Believe me, I understood the point of the comment, and the reason it was made.

I agree with you completely that some -- probably many -- statistical facts merit a healthy degree of skepticism. Especially those presented as support for a partisan argument.

But "what one sees on a daily basis" are not "statistical facts." They are, at best, personal observations of a tiny handful of personal experiences.

And the main point, as noted above, is it's a big world out there, and since "what one sees on a daily basis" is limited to a miniscule corner of the world, those observations are absolutely no means for a general, and in this case, worldwide observation.

[anvil]

unless of course, your sample is based on just what people see on a daily basis is used as your criteria for statistics.

seems no one had done this.

[phtlc]

But "what one sees on a daily basis" are not "statistical facts." They are, at best, personal observations of a tiny handful of personal experiences.

I agree to an extent, but do not discount personal observation. That is what makes people question "facts". For most of my life I have seen on a daily basis things that went against statistically proven facts, and once I got into research work I confirmed what I always suspected (or knew) which was that studies always prove what the person behind them wants them to prove. In fact I actively encourage people to lean on their personal observations when discussion "facts", not to present them as facts themselves, but to question the so call facts. In my experience if the facts do not fit with what you are seeing in front of your face, it may not be you that is wrong.

[Bexy]

While I kind of don't mind this new pope, it's quite clear that he is 1. not a woman 2. never worked a day in his life in the working world. As a woman who has worked several jobs I have never in my life encountered any instance in which I was paid less than my male counterparts, and this whole 'wage gap' I see as nothing other than the normal result of women taking more time off to take care of children. I would love to see hard factual pay slips of men and women in the exact same function and doing the exact same hours, where the woman is paid less than the man.  

For someone who demands facts of others, you base your own assertions exclusively on your personal experience, at one place and in one time. Seems contradictory to me.

Plus, in your jobs, did you see the exact salary data for every employee in the company, and analyze the data factoring in hours worked, experience, position, other compensation, and sex?

Finally, I'm not sure what the Pope's sex, or his experience in "the working world" (whatever that means) has to do with anything. Must one have precise, personal experience with a given subject in order to express an opinion on that subject?

My point was to counter the 'wage gap' which is often proclaimed to be some kind of gigantic problem in the west, yet I as a woman have never encountered it. I never claimed it didn't exist at all. I just don't believe it is some kind of gigantic problem. I don't see the contradiction in asking for proof when I have never encountered any.

And yes, I was in a position where I saw the pay slips of everyone.

My point about the pope is that he is parroting an issue, which -to me- has often been proven not to be much of an issue in the west. And no, of course people don't always need to have personal experience to express an opinion, but I do in general regard the opinions of people who actually have experience in a certain field as more valuable than those who do not.

[MissBarbara]

But "what one sees on a daily basis" are not "statistical facts." They are, at best, personal observations of a tiny handful of personal experiences.

I agree to an extent, but do not discount personal observation. That is what makes people question "facts".

I don't discount personal observation -- BUT, only as a starting point. That's, in its way, the essence of healthy skepticism. You begin but questioning, and personal observation is often the basis for that questioning. But that's where personal observation ends and research begins. Without research, and intelligent consideration of data and analysis, personal observation carries very little weight.

For most of my life I have seen on a daily basis things that went against statistically proven facts, and once I got into research work I confirmed what I always suspected (or knew) which was that studies always prove what the person behind them wants them to prove. In fact I actively encourage people to lean on their personal observations when discussion "facts", not to present them as facts themselves, but to question the so call facts. In my experience if the facts do not fit with what you are seeing in front of your face, it may not be you that is wrong.

You had me nodding my head in agreement until I got to, "Studies always prove what the person behind them wants them to prove."

"Always"? If that's the case, then all data analysis is flawed, and all facts are subjective. Plus, you criticize research bias, and, with the word "always," admit a bias on your own part. Skepticism, what you label above "questioning so-called facts" is a good, healthy thing. But what you describe isn't skepticism, it's cynicism. And there's a world of difference between the two.

[Lois]

It is against the law to pay women less for doing the same job as men.  However, jobs that are dominated by women are routinely paid less.  And then there are jobs that are harder to quantify into a simple job description, such a CEO.  Male CEOs are consistently paid more than their women counterparts.