I have lifted this from an adress given by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a member of the dutch parliament for the conservative liberals) to a conference on "honour killings' (I can barely bring myself to call it that since it is so obscene to think of murdering somebody in a very brutal and gruesome way as honourable).

She is known to be very outspoken on the subject of female genital mutilation (she fled Somalia in part to escape that fate) and the role of women in the Islamic religion. She was one of the main authors of the short movie 'Submission' for which director Theo van Gogh was murdered by a fundamentalist muslim organisation. Because of that, I believe the numbers she comes up with, especially since she knows everything she says in public will be closely scrutinised. She quotes 'The Economist' of november 2005 as one of her sources and various, unnamed, UN reports. In the adress she also told she asked a close jewish friend of hers if it would be alright for her to use the word Holocaust, especially since the adress would be given in Germany. After looking at the numbers presented her friend told her without hesitation that it was the correct term for what she was talking about.

I am not going to translate the entire adress, partly because I do not have access to it, only to a slightly abbreviated version, and part because it is over 2000 words in size. The key points she talks about are:

World wide there is a demographic gap of between 113 and 200 million women. (my explanation: That is women that -should- have been born and be alive but are not. Either because they are not born, are killed or are missing from official statistics. That is the approximate accumulated size of the crimes against women world wide today, but only those that result in their deaths. The number of less fatal crimes is not expressed in this figure).

The Economist writes that between 1.5 and 3 million women and children are murdered each year. In other words every two to four years the Holocaust is repeated without anybody paying much attention to it.

Reasons for this are, amongst others:
- In countries where a son is a blessing and a daughter a curse (either financially or literally) selective abortion and murder of infants is common.
- Young girls die far more often through neglect, starvation or lack of medical care because scarce resources are given to fathers first, sons second, mothers third and daughters last.
- In countries where women are treated as property women are murdered if they chose their own (sexual) partners. In many cases when it is only believed they might do that. In other countries young women are murdered if the family she was married into is dissatisfied with her dowry.
- International traffic in women for sex industry claims the life of countless young girls each year (my comment: the adress and probably the article it is quoted from fail to specify an approximate number of these deaths, though it can be believed to be several tens of thousands yearly)
- Domestic violence is common worldwide. Women aged between 15 and 40 are more likely to be killed or mutilated by domestic violence than by cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined. (my comment: she compares the numbers of death plus mutilations against the number of deaths by other causes. I suspect that if she had compared deaths against deaths and mutilations against mutilations the numbers would not come out quite as appalling. Note the use of the word 'quite' though).
- Roughly 600.000 women die each year because of complications in pregnancy and childbirth. To a large extent this number is so high because women's health is not considered a priority, or even of great importance. The Economist mentions that this equals the number of deaths caused by the genocide in Rwanda. Every year.
- Dayly 6000 young girls have their genitals cut away in whole or in part according to UN studies. A significant portion of these girls dies as a result of infections or blood loss. Those that survive will suffer (sometimes extreme) pain for the rest of their lives.
- UNHO studies indicate that 1 in every 5 women world wide will be the victim of (attempted) rape at least once in their lives.


miss Hirsi Ali continues with refuting the common excuses to let this happen every year:

"This is not systematic murder of women but faith and many women do not seem to mind being part of that faith"

"In times of war and extreme poverty there will always be victims"

"We can not claim that our culture is better than theirs so we must not interfere"


Neither war nor poverty however can be the cause. Overall the world has become safer this past decennium. The number of afmed conflicts decreased by 40pct (source: The Economist). For serious conflicts that cost more than thousand lives the decrease has been 80pct. Yet the numbers presented above for violence against women have not decreased.
Poverty likewise is not an explanation (nor an excuse). Rich countries are equally guilty of suppressing women. E.g. in Saudi Arabia women have no voting rights, they may not leave their country, or even the neighbourhood with permission of their husbands or fathers. The are not allowed to have a job or chose their own partner unless they receive permission of their 'keepers'. At best they can hope to achieve the status of a pet. At worst they are housekeeping slaves.

As for the faith and cultural relativism. A crime is a crime regardless of faith and culture, especially when it violates fundamental human rights like the right to live and to not be harmed. Every religion in the world has a provision that forbids murder, that somehow to some does not seem to apply to women. People can not escape being part of the culture that raised them, yet a crime commited in the name of culture (or tradition) is still a crime against another human being.



...

Eri

While I broadly agree with the sentiments you have to be careful of these broadly inclusive statistics. There are a large number of women who die during childbirth but everyone wants to see that reduced and in general it is being reduced. Compared to the previous centuries the mortality rate is low and dropping (excepting perhaps AIDS). I'm not sure how that fits into crimes against women, especially when it comprises 20-40% of the total figure.

You'll get no arguments here regarding the barbarity of Islam throughout the world.

It isn't just Islam, that was happening in China too. The World bank has been keeping numbers on population and there are quite a few countries where the birth stats just don't seem to jibe with the rest of the world.

In the African countries where genitals are mutilated I'm not convinced that is purely an Islamic practice.

China is different -- the government enforces a 1 child policy (with forced birth control and abortion) to restrict population, an extremely sensible measure. As the human population on Earth spirals out of control, we'll all be adopting similar measures.

It's true, islamic countries tend to be centuries backwards in women's rights. But, ironically, the liberals who are vocal about such issues are often the most hesitant to force regime change or otherwise interfere with the oppressive government.

And part of it <i>is</i> cultural. How many millions of boys' genitals have been mutilated in the United States in the past 50 years? Why do we allow killing a man to stop a rape? Why is it often illegal for a teenage boy to have sex with a teenage girl, but not vice versa? Why does the bride's family pay for the wedding (a form of dowry)? And so on. Western practices may be more sanitized but they're far from neutral.

Such a classic avatar Tuda.
I agree that the practices may not be neutral but in america I think there is a bit more willingness to change or accept change. (Said mainly because I know some married man will soon reply, #*&^@ That, I paid for the durned weddin. If were real lucky the same fellow will also say he cant wait to pay for the divorce haha.

And women say they have it rough in the US. ha!

I've never heard a woman say she has it rough in the US, but I have heard them say there's still room for improvement.

I'm sure blacks don't think they have it as rough as their slave-born ancestors, but there's still room for improvement there too.

Oh, I've herd it plenty of times. It's difficult for a women in the professional career. Women in IT have it hard. Your chances of promoting improve if you're male....

Maybe it's just women being loud trying to make people feel women have it hard. /shrug

Such a classic avatar Tuda.


I still love that nom de plume or guerre, depending.

Oh, I've herd it plenty of times. It's difficult for a women in the professional career. Women in IT have it hard. Your chances of promoting improve if you're male....

Maybe it's just women being loud trying to make people feel women have it hard. /shrug

I worked in tech support for a while, and shared office with a male colleague. Our responsibilities were the same, it made sense that we were physically located at the same place. He was a great guy.

When someone walked through the door to approach one of us about some technical issues he or she had, I can count on one hand the number of times they did not address my male colleague first. Some would even wait for him to get off the phone instead of bringing their issue to me.

I made about $10k less per year than him too. We started at exactly the same time.

(No, I did not suck at my job :P )

I made about $10k less per year than him too. We started at exactly the same time.

(No, I did not suck at my job :P )

Perhaps you sucked at negotiating your salary.


Doing the job, and convincing others you can do the job are two different things.

Actually, my first job out of college, one of my coworkers was a woman who had more experience than I did (10+ years). We started on the same day, and were doing the same thing, but she was getting paid more.

I guess it's all anecdotal though.

Perhaps you sucked at negotiating your salary.

Actually, from the initial offers to the final ones, I negotiated myself up more both in hard cash and in percentages than the guy did.

But yes, it's all anecdotal. Like the time I was first adviced by a friend that their company was looking for someone like me and I should apply, to a few days later when he told me not to bother because the new boss didn't hire women since they all got pregnant anyway. However, if on average women are about 17% (europe) worse than men at negotiating salaries, something needs to be done. I don't know if the remedy is set salaries, education of women, change in company culture, whatever, but as long as the overall goal is "equal pay for equal work", something has to be done.

(wow, this thread warped fast..)

It isn't just Islam, that was happening in China too. The World bank has been keeping numbers on population and there are quite a few countries where the birth stats just don't seem to jibe with the rest of the world.

In the African countries where genitals are mutilated I'm not convinced that is purely an Islamic practice.

True. It is an african practice, not an islamic one. The region it happens has long been converted to islam and they are using that religion now to justify the practice. Before that I suppose it was the will of the ancestors or something.

In many ways parts of africa are as bad as pakistan when it comes to treating women. They are chattel in both places and while not sold after marriage (which would make them true slaves) they are totally dependent on their husbands, and have to accept anything he wishes to do, which includes sleeping around, sharing her with visiting dignitaries, forcing her to do the heavy farm work as well as housekeeping and taking care of the children.


Eri

I worked in tech support for a while, and shared office with a male colleague. Our responsibilities were the same, it made sense that we were physically located at the same place. He was a great guy.

When someone walked through the door to approach one of us about some technical issues he or she had, I can count on one hand the number of times they did not address my male colleague first. Some would even wait for him to get off the phone instead of bringing their issue to me.

I made about $10k less per year than him too. We started at exactly the same time.

(No, I did not suck at my job :P )

Maybe he had previous experience in the field that you didn't have?

If I've been working in the field for 5 years...and another guy has been working in the field for 10 years...I kind of expect him to rate a higher starting wage at a new company than I would make.

Maybe he didn't. I have no idea. I'm just listing but one reason why he may have had a higher salary.

Must resist temptation to make amusing comment....

Maybe he had previous experience in the field that you didn't have?

Duh, no? If he did, I wouldn't have even thought about it. Actually, it was quite the contrary. We'd both worked on "fixing boxes that don't work" before, and for about the same amount of time, but unlike me he had held no previous customer facing role.

Maybe he didn't. I have no idea. I'm just listing but one reason why he may have had a higher salary.

He didn't. Now, granted, I've only been in the hire-and-fire position once, and only for 2 years so I don't know everything there is to know about people management, but as best as I can analyse, the only difference between us was gender.

(And I'm really curious about that amusing comment. Not even a hint about which post you're refering to. tsk tsk! Share!)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter about this or any of the other "god, that's so blatantly sexist that it's not even funny"-situations I've experienced at work. I'm just sharing my experience, and some of them clearly indicate that we've got a way to go until we can claim equality in the work place.

amusing comment comment was in reference to They...have to accept anything he wishes to do, which includes sleeping around, sharing her with visiting dignitaries, forcing her to do the heavy farm work as well as housekeeping and taking care of the children.

I was going to make an appropriately Andrew Dice Clayish remark and decided y'all would take me seriously

Similar to Tinsi, the first lab I ever worked at, I was told I was being "promoted" to a position of greater responsibility and knowledge (which I was), but they didn't have the funds to give me a raise to go with it. However, the MAN I was training to replace me on my first job, who spoke Russian, but almost no English, was making roughly 125% of what I was making. He had a degree from a Russian university in Geothermal Engineering. I had a degree from a US University in Biochemistry. We were doing chemistry.

I had more experience than he did, I had a more applicable degree than he had, I had more time with the company than he had (he was a new hire), and I spoke English. Yet I made less than he did while I was training him to take over my job. The only thing I didn't have was testicles.

Or, more currently (at a different company), it took me 4 years of performing my male predecessors job before I finally had gotten enough pay raises to be making what he had been making 4 years before he left the company (total elapsed time: 8 years). During the time when I was doing his job AND my old job (they didn't want to hire anyone new), I was still making less than he had been when he only had to do his job.

I've heard all the excuses, but really, until the people in power (mostly men) decide that women are worth as much and as capable as men are at their jobs, I think things will remain the same.

For me, my pay went up when I left the company for a 'better' job, and 2 years later the company was on the verge of shutting down. The president called me and literally said "What would it take to get you to come back, we can't get by without you." Only after I was gone was my worth noted.

Yeah unfortunately if you even give an inkling in the workplace that you believe there is inequity you risk (yes, even in this day and age) losing your job or at the very least, being labeled a "troublemaker" and will remain relegated to a lower position.

I worked for a billion dollar+, privately held company once in a regional position. Each of the several regions had similar positions with the exact job description. I had years of experience within the very company in a corporate position. But the company decentralized, the central point was removed, and I moved to a regional position. Oddly enough, there was a substantial raise involved at the time and my corporate job was now being done at a regional level by me and several men with lesser qualifications, to be sure.

I always knew that despite the fact that my region paid higher salaries for "like" positions for others, mine was lower than my counterparts in the other regions. I never quite knew to what extent, but when the company finally decided to re-centralize and roll the job into another division, I was offered the standard severance. One of the key conditions of the severance was a waiver for future lawsuits against the company. To make a long story short... since there was nothing *now* to lose, I decided to discuss the waiver with my boss explaining that I knew I was paid less for many years, and that I couldn't in good conscience sign the waiver so... pass. Then the most amazing thing occurred. I was offered a counter-severance... we talked some more, and I pushed for more. By the time we were done, my severance offer had more than quadrupled and was substantially more than triple that of any of my (yes, all male) counterparts. Now, the severance didn't make up for the difference in incomes over the life of the job, but I knew that in my industry, I was one of the "lucky few" women who received a decent salary for a job I enjoyed. For years I lived with the inequities and rarely ever brought it up.

Unfortunately most men think that these stories are rare or can easily be explained away with some *logic*. But the reality of it is that the vast majority of women in the work place have one or MORE stories of wage and treatment inequities that are real and very personal.

Amazing story, Arienne! Hmmm... I didn't realize that severance pay in return for signing some silly waiver would be negotiable! Thanks for figuring that out. :D

I wonder if this doesn't explain part of the issue:
I was one of the "lucky few" women who received a decent salary for a job I enjoyed. For years I lived with the inequities and rarely ever brought it up.

I think women don't value themselves enough. Some men would be really put out to know he was making less. He would confront his boss, interview for a new job and bargain a lot harder when he got a job offer. I'm not saying there isn't a problem out there, but I think some of it might be explained by how women differ in this regard.

I think for me, changing jobs frequently problem helped raise my salary. I never had a job I wasn't entirely sick of in 2-3 years.

In Canada, despite employment equity initiatives, women are still paid less than male counterparts for equivalent work. I've personally seen instances of it in people that work for me! The inequity is institutionalized in the Human Resources and compensation systems. It's actually worse in government positions than in private business.

Any male who thinks that there isn't a gender-based compensation inequality is suffering from naive rationalization.

I even have a little story that goes with this. There is one female in my organization that took over a business job when a male moved on to other career opportunities. She moved up from a mainly clerical position to a business job with much more responsibility. (Note: In her previous job she managed 5 full time employees and 130 part-time home caregivers for a major medical company. The company folded and she got a job with me. She has plenty of smarts and ability. She was badly underemployed as a clerical worker.)

When it came time to decide on her new salary, I made a recommendation that she get a very sizable increase that put her within 10% of her predecessor. I felt that this was reasonable because she didn't have the job-specific experience and needed to grow in the job to reach the same salary as the person who had vacated the position.

I got pushback from Human Resources types (ironically mostly female). They came with studies and data that questioned whether she should be paid this much. The studies had gender-bias. From their perspective she should have only gotten a modest increase which would have put her fully 30% away from her predecessor.

I'm pretty stubborn so I got my way, but I had to play a card that I don't like playing. I said, "I don't feel comfortable standing in front of a judge deciding a pay equity dispute and defending such a low salary when she is doing the same job as a male. I will document my concern, and ask Human Resources to sign off." They backed off. My only concession was a six-month job trial period at a lower salary, with me as the sole judge of her performance. If she succeeded in her job, she would retroactively be paid to the full amount I recommended.

She did very well in her new job, and was quite happy to get a lump sum payment for her back pay.

Woo hoo! I want to work for Thicket! Good job.

Thicket, the issue you came up against is that HR, whether male or female, works for the company. In their short sightedness I am sure that they felt that it was their duty to save the company as much as they could in salaries.

Amazing story, Arienne! Hmmm... I didn't realize that severance pay in return for signing some silly waiver would be negotiable! Thanks for figuring that out.You can negotiate anything. You just have to be able and willing to walk away with nothing, too. Once you have that mentality of "nothing to lose" then you'll most often do a LOT better. :D

When I was working in a recruiting position, salary offers were pretty cut and dried based on education and years of experience. There was some latitude for higher-level positions, but very little for new grads.

The big difference that I saw between men and women applicants is that men were much more likely to negotiate their offers then women. It was the rare woman who would come back with a counteroffer, but it was pretty common with men. Those who made a counteroffer wound up with a higher offer, regardless of sex.

Arienne did it right, and kudos for her.

Arienne did it right, and kudos for her.No, I didn't. What I did is akin to getting a tax refund for overpayment of taxes... only in my case I "overpaid" a lot more than I got back. I did nothing to help future women within that company or in the workplace in general. I took the path of least resistance... but I had a job. :p

Yeah, I agree with Ari. She did what most women do, suck it up and work twice as hard as the guy in the cubicle next door and hope someone notices how good you are and rewards you. Lets just say... this way leads to a lot of teeth gnashing and frustration.

There are a dozen different 'minorities' in America dealing with the same issue, depending on where they work.

At least yours is legally protected, if difficult to do anything about.

There are a dozen different 'minorities' in America dealing with the same issue, depending on where they work.

At least yours is legally protected, if difficult to do anything about.

Aren't they all (except sexual minorities) protected legally?

Aren't they all (except sexual minorities) protected legally?
People get discriminated against for all kinds of reason that aren't protected. Like fat people.

I've recently hit the magical "ten years" mark of experience - all of it within IT with Microsoft Windows Server product, explicitly Exchange Server. I've worked at Microsoft and gotten experience in Q&A, technical writing, customer interaction, consulting and troubleshooting training directly from them in addition to the normal MCSE certification training. I've done a lot of job hopping in the past five years, only twice voluntarily (others were layoffs and other staff reductions), but every single job I've taken, I've gotten a raise - usually of 10% or more. Of the last three jobs, I turned down two of the initial offers, the one gave me my asking salary right off the bat (which was 15% more than the other more "senior" team members). The two where I turned down the initial offer, I got a counteroffer above my asking salary. At all three of my most recent jobs, I have been the highest paid person in the group each time.

Aren't they all (except sexual minorities) protected legally?

Religion isn't protected.

I can assure you, there are many places (New York nor Miami being one of those places) where my last name will keep me from jobs outright or put a definite limit on my promotability (the Air Force being one of them, I might add).

So be it. Myself, I work for the family.

I've recently hit the magical "ten years" mark of experience - all of it within IT with Microsoft Windows Server product, explicitly Exchange Server. I've worked at Microsoft and gotten experience in Q&A, technical writing, customer interaction, consulting and troubleshooting training directly from them in addition to the normal MCSE certification training. I've done a lot of job hopping in the past five years, only twice voluntarily (others were layoffs and other staff reductions), but every single job I've taken, I've gotten a raise - usually of 10% or more. Of the last three jobs, I turned down two of the initial offers, the one gave me my asking salary right off the bat (which was 15% more than the other more "senior" team members). The two where I turned down the initial offer, I got a counteroffer above my asking salary. At all three of my most recent jobs, I have been the highest paid person in the group each time.


Oh, I am so finding you on IMs next time I have exchange issues.

eseutil /p fixes everything, Aidon :D

Huh? You can't discriminate based on Religion any more than you can color. Well, you can, but it taint legal.

There is no affirmative action for Religions.

Noone runs studies to see about pay disparities between religions.

Sure, you can't ask a person if they are Jewish, for instance, and then not hire them if they are.

But guess what? It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Mr. Rabinowitz is.

Or Mr. Al Assan.

I can assure you, there are many places (New York nor Miami being one of those places) where my last name will keep me from jobs outright or put a definite limit on my promotability (the Air Force being one of them, I might add).

Aidon Bin Laden?

LOL! Hey, there's a relative, neice I think, of Osama who is getting a reality TV show somewhere.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Mr. Rabinowitz is.

Or Mr. Al Assan.

I dunno, maybe I've just lived a few too many wildly socially different places in my life, but when I hear those names, I assume that somewhere in their ancestory is a Jew or an Arab, but I don't make any assumptions about the particular individual's religious beliefs.

One quarter of my family tree was jewish, but when they immigrated, they dropped the judiasm (for all sorts of reasons, not the least being that they lived in the middle of nowhere with no other jews around them). The name itself was 'generic German'. My paternal grandmother re-established the jewish part of my family tree as jewish. Not that it matters as my father is baptised and practices Lutheran. *shrug*

Most of my Arab-sounding-named friends have no religious faith at all.

Maybe I just know a different set of people.

LOL! Hey, there's a relative, neice I think, of Osama who is getting a reality TV show somewhere.

And OMG is she HOT!