Wage gap

[Jello Biafra]

I can't believe that you still actually think society just pays women less then men, for exactly the same job, for sheer lulz and that somehow that's still perfectly legal.

Firstly, while sexism against women is sometimes something that a sexist person is aware of, in many cases the sexism is subconscious.
Secondly, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Workplace discrimination seems to be the only crime that people think disappeared when it was made illegal.

The INCOME gap is different because men and women tend to work DIFFERENT JOBS.

And this is in part due to the fact that some employers won't hire women for certain jobs, while some other employers will hold women to a higher standard before hiring them.

[Jello Biafra]

Why should men be the ones making the decisions in society?

Well if I was going to go by patriarchy theory how about the fact that men made it? The entire feminist idea of assiging society's ills to men necessitates assigning men the same responsibility for it's greatness. Why should women be entitled to control any aspect of the societies they had no part in?

Patriarchy theory says that men constructed society all by themselves with absolutely no help from women?

[Jello Biafra]

a patriarchal society looks after its children

To the same extent that it looks after any of its other property.

[Settrah]

I can't believe that you still actually think society just pays women less then men, for exactly the same job, for sheer lulz and that somehow that's still perfectly legal.

Firstly, while sexism against women is sometimes something that a sexist person is aware of, in many cases the sexism is subconscious.
Secondly, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Workplace discrimination seems to be the only crime that people think disappeared when it was made illegal.

The INCOME gap is different because men and women tend to work DIFFERENT JOBS.

And this is in part due to the fact that some employers won't hire women for certain jobs, while some other employers will hold women to a higher standard before hiring them.

This kinda seems flimsy and nitpicking. Subconscious sexism is something that cannot properly be falsified, secondly the fact that something is illegal means society does not endorse it save for fringe groups and anomies. Also no, women won't get hired for a lot of jobs, because a lot of jobs are high risk, best suited for men because of their upper body strength, and rad fems would have a fieldday of TEH EVUL MENZ were making women doing manual labour... but those jobs don't pay as well as others, so this point of yours is moot. Fourthly and, maybe this is just a WILD CRAZY THEORY, but employers WANT women to be in higher paying jobs, and that's why they push them to achieve a higher standard needed for that better paying higher position?! Insaaannee. That damn crazy patriarchy.

[Des-Bal]

Patriarchy theory says that men constructed society all by themselves with absolutely no help from women?

Patriarchy holds men responsible for all societal ills and doesn't assign any responsibility to the other 51% of the population. Logically that must extend to the good shit.

[Jello Biafra]

This kinda seems flimsy and nitpicking. Subconscious sexism is something that cannot properly be falsified,

Subsconscious sexism compared to conscious sexism might be difficult to falsify, but sexism isn't necessarily difficult to falsify. I've linked to several studies showing sexism in employers and in the general public.

secondly the fact that something is illegal means society does not endorse it save for fringe groups and anomies.

So then you think that politicians in general make decisions that align with the endorsements of society?

Fourthly and, maybe this is just a WILD CRAZY THEORY, but employers WANT women to be in higher paying jobs, and that's why they push them to he achieve a higher standard needed for that better paying higher position?!

Some employers want women to be in higher paying jobs, some don't want women to be in higher paying jobs. The survey I linked to 7 or 8 posts ago says (emphasis mine):

"A third of managers would rather employ a man in his 20s or 30s over a woman of the same age for fear of maternity leave, according to a new study. A survey of 500 managers by law firm Slater & Gordon showed that more than 40% admitted they are generally wary of hiring a woman of childbearing age, while a similar number would be wary of hiring a woman who has already had a child or hiring a mother for a senior role."

A significant number of managers in this survey are less likely to promote mothers, simply because they are mothers. This is discrimination.

[Jello Biafra]

Patriarchy theory says that men constructed society all by themselves with absolutely no help from women?

Patriarchy holds men responsible for all societal ills and doesn't assign any responsibility to the other 51% of the population. Logically that must extend to the good shit.

Or, it could be that the good shit is left out of patriarchy theory because it is not part of patriarchy?

[Settrah]

"A third of managers would rather employ a man in his 20s or 30s over a woman of the same age for fear of maternity leave, according to a new study. A survey of 500 managers by law firm Slater & Gordon showed that more than 40% admitted they are generally wary of hiring a woman of childbearing age, while a similar number would be wary of hiring a woman who has already had a child or hiring a mother for a senior role."

A significant number of managers in this survey are less likely to promote mothers, simply because they are mothers. This is discrimination.

So? Its business. It's about making money. It's up to the employer to decide if they want to take on a liability or not, and how that impacts sales and profits. The fact that someone isn't a women isn't a problem for a lot of people, but if an employer doesn't want to hire someone they know will just take (let's say) 3 years paid maternity leave, then so be it? It's their jurisdiction and choice. They're trying to make money, not win first prize in a touchy feely boy scout badge contest.

Also, plenty of women become those managers too, you know. Or, did you forget that? It's not just evil men in the seat.

[Duvniask]

Why should men be the ones making the decisions in society?

Well if I was going to go by patriarchy theory how about the fact that men made it? The entire feminist idea of assiging society's ills to men necessitates assigning men the same responsibility for it's greatness.

That men have ruled doesn't mean they built everything with their own hands. For example, in a typical nuclear family, the father figure may "rule", but that does not mean he was the one who raised the children or did the necessary housework, etc. Such responsibilities typically fall upon women. Like men, women have absolutely had a part in society, but it has been less a empowered one.

What good patriarchal society has produced doesn't stem merely from the fact that it was ruled by men. On the other hand, that women are forced, directly or indirectly, into inferior roles relates very much to the fact that they're women.

Why should women be entitled to control any aspect of the societies they had no part in?

Because women can be just as capable as men, and because, at least in the past, they have not been given much chance to do so.

[Shemlia]

If you own a business that pays males more, you will be put in jail, no wage gap here in shemlia
Man=woman! (I'm a man)

[Chestaan]

And the good thing about this framework is that it doesn't require perfect competition to hold true. Even if we have two firms and one of them is non-sexist then there will be a penalty for not penalty employing women.

Now obviously the more firms there are the less likely there will be any discrimination. And seeing as how the wage gap is said to exist literally in every industry in every part of the world it cannot be the case that purely discriminatory views on women account for the gap.

If it were the case that employers who discriminate against women were different from the general public, this might be the case. However, it appears that the general public also discriminates against women.

This study found that participants who viewed a video of a man and a woman helping customers viewed the men as being better at their jobs and the store in which they worked as being more clean, despite the fact that both the man and the woman were actors reading from a script, the videos were shot from the same angles, and were shot on the same set.

This study sent identical resumes to high-end restaurant for waitstaff positions. (Waitstaff positions pay more in high-end restaurants.) The female candidates were significantly less likely to get both an interview and a job offer. One of the reasons given for the discrimination was customer preference.

If the general public perceives women as being better workers, employers will too, whether or not this is actually the case.

It's an interesting point but unfortunately I have no access to the papers themselves, only the abstracts. I can't comment on them properly in that case.

However, I would point out that even if these papers are perfect, they only refer to industries such as waiting and the like. There are several other industries, where profitability does not depend on the employee's interaction with the customer where as far as I know there is also a wage gap.

Basically what I am saying is that there is something else at play. Other factors which have been brought up in this thread such as maternity leave and negotiating skills.

[New Edom]

The Pipeline article? From what I can see it is their interpretation of their findings. What I'm seeing is a summary, not any explanation of what kind of research they did, what the pool of participants was like or the circumstances of the research subjects, the factors considered, or the review of the study by other social scientists, so I'm skeptical.

Any of the others would also be fine.

I'm seeing a bunch of supposition there. 4.7%--who cares? Maybe give it a generation or so.

But I'm also considering a lot of who gives a crap. Boo hoo, women don't hold enough CEO positions. Why should we care if women cannot hold enough of the top 1%?

Why should men be the ones making the decisions in society?

Why should men make decisions which are likely to be at their expense on behalf of women when clearly feminists feel women owe men nothing at all and do not do things that benefit them? Why support people who are ungrateful?

[Galloism]

Why should men make decisions which are likely to be at their expense on behalf of women when clearly feminists feel women owe men nothing at all and do not do things that benefit them? Why support people who are ungrateful?

Why should we stoop to their level?

Either you're for equality or against it.

[Trumpostan]

This kinda seems flimsy and nitpicking. Subconscious sexism is something that cannot properly be falsified,

Subsconscious sexism compared to conscious sexism might be difficult to falsify, but sexism isn't necessarily difficult to falsify. I've linked to several studies showing sexism in employers and in the general public.

secondly the fact that something is illegal means society does not endorse it save for fringe groups and anomies.

So then you think that politicians in general make decisions that align with the endorsements of society?

Fourthly and, maybe this is just a WILD CRAZY THEORY, but employers WANT women to be in higher paying jobs, and that's why they push them to he achieve a higher standard needed for that better paying higher position?!

Some employers want women to be in higher paying jobs, some don't want women to be in higher paying jobs. The survey I linked to 7 or 8 posts ago says (emphasis mine):

"A third of managers would rather employ a man in his 20s or 30s over a woman of the same age for fear of maternity leave, according to a new study. A survey of 500 managers by law firm Slater & Gordon showed that more than 40% admitted they are generally wary of hiring a woman of childbearing age, while a similar number would be wary of hiring a woman who has already had a child or hiring a mother for a senior role."

A significant number of managers in this survey are less likely to promote mothers, simply because they are mothers. This is discrimination.

It can be, but it isn't necessarily always so. There are jobs where it is perfectly legitimate to expect an employee to be available full time. I've worked in a job where myself and a woman did the exact same job on paper but I was paid at least 10% more as far as I am aware. And I also still think that it was absolutely justified because I usually showed up earlier and left later, plus had a higher production with fewer mistakes. According to "equal pay" absolutism, she should have been paid the same on account of doing the same job on paper. In reality, it doesn't work that way. If she'd been more productive than me, she ought to have been paid better and rightfully so.

And there's still the legacy of the "woman is supposed to take care of the kids and stay at home" era. But even if we get to a point where men and women do the exact same amount of work in and around the house, and spend exactly the same time with the children (if any) there will still be differences.

Now for most jobs the physiological differences between men and women are irrelevant, but in some cases they are highly relevant, like pro sports. I saw the case of the US women's soccer team complaining that they got paid less than the men. However they seemed to fail to take into account that the men's game is far more commercially viable globally speaking and generates far more revenue and spectators. In fact the women's world champions got their asses kicked in an exhibition game against a team of 16-17 year old boys. Again, not because men are better, but because of physiological differences that nature hasn't cared to remove yet.

Now the obvious solution would be to cease having separate events for men and women but I don't see feminists warming up to that idea for some reason

[New Edom]

Why should men make decisions which are likely to be at their expense on behalf of women when clearly feminists feel women owe men nothing at all and do not do things that benefit them? Why support people who are ungrateful?

Why should we stoop to their level?

Either you're for equality or against it.

You can only negotiate from a place of power if there is no mutual respect. Feminists generally despise men's concerns. Any concerns raised are dismissed, treated with contempt or even outright ignored and lied about. I am not doing any of that. What I'm saying is that I won't cooperate with them any more than I legally have to without getting something in return. In fact, I'm acting with far greater integrity than they, who demand someting in exchange for nothing.

[Galloism]

Why should we stoop to their level?

Either you're for equality or against it.

You can only negotiate from a place of power if there is no mutual respect. Feminists generally despise men's concerns. Any concerns raised are dismissed, treated with contempt or even outright ignored and lied about. I am not doing any of that. What I'm saying is that I won't cooperate with them any more than I legally have to without getting something in return. In fact, I'm acting with far greater integrity than they, who demand someting in exchange for nothing.

Which means when they are fighting for something for equality, you are opposing that equality for pettiness sake.

Which makes you an obstacle to equality. Stooping to their level, in other words. Fighting against equality based on the gender of the person seeking it.

[Des-Bal]

That men have ruled doesn't mean they built everything with their own hands. For example, in a typical nuclear family, the father figure may "rule", but that does not mean he was the one who raised the children or did the necessary housework, etc. Such responsibilities typically fall upon women. Like men, women have absolutely had a part in society, but it has been less a empowered one.

What good patriarchal society has produced doesn't stem merely from the fact that it was ruled by men. On the other hand, that women are forced, directly or indirectly, into inferior roles relates very much to the fact that they're women.

Because women can be just as capable as men, and because, at least in the past, they have not been given much chance to do so.

And yet those women who are without question part of society are not included in the calculation of what society is. Patriarchy does not ascribe the shape of the world to society but to men. Even presuming that women's sole contribution throughout history was the raising of children that's very little but position dedicated to shaping societal views. Excluding women from that calculation of what society is is a serious misstep and the entire narrative that society can be boiled down to men oppressing women is a flawed one.

[Des-Bal]

You can only negotiate from a place of power if there is no mutual respect. Feminists generally despise men's concerns. Any concerns raised are dismissed, treated with contempt or even outright ignored and lied about. I am not doing any of that. What I'm saying is that I won't cooperate with them any more than I legally have to without getting something in return. In fact, I'm acting with far greater integrity than they, who demand someting in exchange for nothing.

So you have integrity because you stand in opposition to equality as part of what you view as hostile negotiation. I'm curious as to how you'll decide this was a misunderstood statement.

[New Edom]

You can only negotiate from a place of power if there is no mutual respect. Feminists generally despise men's concerns. Any concerns raised are dismissed, treated with contempt or even outright ignored and lied about. I am not doing any of that. What I'm saying is that I won't cooperate with them any more than I legally have to without getting something in return. In fact, I'm acting with far greater integrity than they, who demand someting in exchange for nothing.

Which means when they are fighting for something for equality, you are opposing that equality for pettiness sake.

Which makes you an obstacle to equality. Stooping to their level, in other words. Fighting against equality based on the gender of the person seeking it.

It's not about the gender of the people. Nice little feminist accusation though, Gallo. It's about the ideology. There are WOMEN who disagree with the mainstream feminist ideology about workplace wages, so your accusation is bullshit.

[DARGLED]

The wage gap is mostly if not completely explained by the choices that women make.
Why would a business hire men if they can hire women to do the same job at 76% wages?

[Galloism]

Which means when they are fighting for something for equality, you are opposing that equality for pettiness sake.

Which makes you an obstacle to equality. Stooping to their level, in other words. Fighting against equality based on the gender of the person seeking it.

It's not about the gender of the people. Nice little feminist accusation though, Gallo. It's about the ideology. There are WOMEN who disagree with the mainstream feminist ideology about workplace wages, so your accusation is bullshit.

Im talking about your specific statement that you will oppose them because they are feminists until you get a quid pro quo on men's issues. If you oppose them in all facets because they are feminist, you will be opposing efforts towards equality sometimes.

Feminism has a complicated relationship with equality. Sometimes it's for, sometimes it's against, but if you oppose all efforts of feminists because they are feminists you will certainly be against equality sometimes.

[New Edom]

It's not about the gender of the people. Nice little feminist accusation though, Gallo. It's about the ideology. There are WOMEN who disagree with the mainstream feminist ideology about workplace wages, so your accusation is bullshit.

Im talking about your specific statement that you will oppose them because they are feminists until you get a quid pro quo on men's issues. If you oppose them in all facets because they are feminist, you will be opposing efforts towards equality sometimes.

Feminism has a complicated relationship with equality. Sometimes it's for, sometimes it's against, but if you oppose all efforts of feminists because they are feminists you will certainly be against equality sometimes.

Feminists just claim to be the only game in town when it comes to 'conversatrions' about gender equality.

And this is how you negotiate when you aren't heard at all: you start becoming stubborn. If nothing you say is recognized as having any virtue or importance, you have to be a pain in the ass. Make it clear that you need to get something out of what is being proposed.

I'll give you a good example. Affirmative consent is theoretical and has a lot of issues with it, yet none of htem are acnkowledged by feminist leaders, and men and boys are the ones who are going to be on the sharp end when it comes to being held responsible. Is it possible to negotiate about this when liberal and leftist leaders vehemently support feminists on this issue and blame men for everything?

So how is this wage gap thing any different? Feminists generally are saying that the business world is unfairly biased in favour of women. Explanations that vary from the patriarchy theory one are being rejected anyway, so why bother explaining it for the millionth time?

[Galloism]

Im talking about your specific statement that you will oppose them because they are feminists until you get a quid pro quo on men's issues. If you oppose them in all facets because they are feminist, you will be opposing efforts towards equality sometimes.

Feminism has a complicated relationship with equality. Sometimes it's for, sometimes it's against, but if you oppose all efforts of feminists because they are feminists you will certainly be against equality sometimes.

Feminists just claim to be the only game in town when it comes to 'conversatrions' about gender equality.

And this is how you negotiate when you aren't heard at all: you start becoming stubborn. If nothing you say is recognized as having any virtue or importance, you have to be a pain in the ass. Make it clear that you need to get something out of what is being proposed.

Then you will be against equality sometimes.

I mean, if you're ok with that, well whatever, it's a valid tactic, but let's be clear and honest about what you're proposing. I do think you'll find yourself marginalized and demonized as an enemy of equality, but that's likely to happen anyway, even if you only take on feminism in the areas where they are demonstrably working against equality. The difference is that, in the latter case, they'll be wrong. If you follow what you've proposed, they'll be right.

[New Edom]

Feminists just claim to be the only game in town when it comes to 'conversatrions' about gender equality.

And this is how you negotiate when you aren't heard at all: you start becoming stubborn. If nothing you say is recognized as having any virtue or importance, you have to be a pain in the ass. Make it clear that you need to get something out of what is being proposed.

Then you will be against equality sometimes.

I mean, if you're ok with that, well whatever, it's a valid tactic, but let's be clear and honest about what you're proposing. I do think you'll find yourself marginalized and demonized as an enemy of equality, but that's likely to happen anyway, even if you only take on feminism in the areas where they are demonstrably working against equality. The difference is that, in the latter case, they'll be wrong. If you follow what you've proposed, they'll be right.

Do you have some other strategy to propose?

[Galloism]

Then you will be against equality sometimes.

I mean, if you're ok with that, well whatever, it's a valid tactic, but let's be clear and honest about what you're proposing. I do think you'll find yourself marginalized and demonized as an enemy of equality, but that's likely to happen anyway, even if you only take on feminism in the areas where they are demonstrably working against equality. The difference is that, in the latter case, they'll be wrong. If you follow what you've proposed, they'll be right.

Do you have some other strategy to propose?

Well, I pursue equality always.

Of course, while that has yielded SOME results, it has been neither quick nor universal. However, at least I have a clear conscience.

Well, about that anyway.