Wage gap

[Costa Fierro]

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.

NE would be opposing equity, which isn't the same. Feminism doesn't stand for equality anymore.

[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.

NE would be opposing equity, which isn't the same. Feminism doesn't stand for equality anymore.

As I said - feminism's relationship with equality is complicated. Sometimes it's for, sometimes it's against.

[New Edom]

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.

I too pursue equality. In a way it's like being an atheist in the 1950s right now--it's simply not conventional and morality is always associated with the mainstream view as though the virtues belong to the ideology rather than the ideolgy being seen as a way through which certain virtues and goals can be pursued. Equality doesn't belong to feminism any more than charity belongs to Christianity.

[-Harley-Quinn-]

Ugh. Another one a these threads. Will someone please make it stop?

[New Edom]

Ugh. Another one a these threads. Will someone please make it stop?

(Image)

Why? What do you care?

[-Harley-Quinn-]

Ugh. Another one a these threads. Will someone please make it stop?

(Image)

Why? What do you care?

Because I'm tired of all these fucking circle jerks. Ok? I've seen it a million times. "FEMINISMZ DOESNT CARE ABOUT MEN!" "YEAH? WELL FUCK YOU MAN FEMINISM DOESNT NEED TA CARE ABOUT MEN!" Blah blah blah blah fucking blah. It goes no where. Its the same shit every time. Ok?! We get it. Some of ya are feminists and some of ya aren't.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Why? What do you care?

Because I'm tired of all these fucking circle jerks. Ok? I've seen it a million times. "FEMINISMZ DOESNT CARE ABOUT MEN!" "YEAH? WELL FUCK YOU MAN FEMINISM DOESNT NEED TA CARE ABOUT MEN!" Blah blah blah blah fucking blah. It goes no where. Its the same shit every time. Ok?! We get it. Some of ya are feminists and some of ya aren't.

Then ignore it.
We have the technology.

[Galloism]

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.

I too pursue equality. In a way it's like being an atheist in the 1950s right now--it's simply not conventional and morality is always associated with the mainstream view as though the virtues belong to the ideology rather than the ideolgy being seen as a way through which certain virtues and goals can be pursued. Equality doesn't belong to feminism any more than charity belongs to Christianity.

And yet, if you were an atheist in the 1950s who proposed the banning of religion, or were standing around protesting all religions all the time no matter what they were doing, you would be justifiably called out on that.

Oppose feminism when it seeks to reduce or undermine equality. I encourage it. It's the right thing to do. Always.

However, if they're pursuing equality on X subject, if you can't be arsed to align with them, at least get out the way. Otherwise when they accuse you of fighting against equality and women, they will be right.

[New Edom]

Why? What do you care?

Because I'm tired of all these fucking circle jerks. Ok? I've seen it a million times. "FEMINISMZ DOESNT CARE ABOUT MEN!" "YEAH? WELL FUCK YOU MAN FEMINISM DOESNT NEED TA CARE ABOUT MEN!" Blah blah blah blah fucking blah. It goes no where. Its the same shit every time. Ok?! We get it. Some of ya are feminists and some of ya aren't.

So these threads are causing you problems or something? Why can't you just ignore them? I'm not a fan of "Jersey Shore" but I don't go find threads on other forums who like it and complain that it exists, I just don't watch it and have no interest in it.

[Freefall11111]

The real question is why businesses are passing up a supposed 23% discount on labor costs.

Because the wage gap doesn't exist in the way most people think it does. When you tell people women earn X per dollar compared to men, most people think that means that women get paid less for the same type and amount of work. Such a thing doesn't exist in the West. If it did, women would be preferred by employers.

[Longweather]

I looked at some of the data they posted. One thing I don't see mentioned in the abstract or data is any mention of networking. From personal experience, there is definitely a major advantage in creating connections to increase your chances of not only getting a job but to get a higher position. People tend to be biased towards those that they know or those that can be vouched for. Maybe, for some odd reason, many of the women in that study did a poor job at networking.

Can you point to any indication that the study did not control for networking?

On that link I had made the mistaken assumption that the article is behind a paywall (If it is then it's rather porous). I had looked at the abstract and the data sheets provided and none of them mentioned networking. Looking at the actual report, there is no mention of networking connections at all. None. There's mentions of comparison/control from years of experience, industry, "aspirations" (a vague term but one I would not generally conflate with networking), and global region. There's mentions of job hopping and working in "unconventional tracks" which are somewhat defined. Not at any one point did the report indicate it considered potential networking opportunities and networking as factors in earning a higher wage.

[Communal Ecotopia]

"Women" alone cannot do anything. "Society" (which means both men and women) MUST act to fix the gap. It's not only demeaning to women, it's detrimental to the society as a whole as it destroys meritocracy.

I have noticed that even in countries which mandate a positive right to non-discrimination, and equal pay for the same job, there's a wage gap between men and women. Quite often it happens also because the wage increases with the years in the same workplace: but the average woman employee is much less likely to have spent the same amount of years as the average men employee. That's because employers expect women, especially young women, to become mothers at some point in their life, which means maternity leaves before and after birth, and more requests for time off to care for the kids. Which means that it's rather common for employers to prefer to hire men - which results in men having longer careers in the same place, hence higher wages even for the same job.

The issue here lies in a social tradition about mothers providing most, if not all, of the care for kids. The best way to level the playing field there would be mandating BOTH maternity and paternity leaves, for the same amount of months. And coupling this with an extensive and inclusive system of affordable (or even state-paid) daycare and kindergartens.

I don't think that would be enough to close the gap as there's still job choice disparities along with hours worked, but that would be a solution for salaried workers.

Job choice disparities explain some of the wage gap, but even in non-dangerous, fairly common jobs, such as those in academia and/or law, the pay gap is significant.

[Communal Ecotopia]

*prepares for shitstorm*

I don't believe in the gender wage gap.

Oh it exists in the West, but I would say it is only occasionally because of unfair sexism. It's as far as I know because of women's choices. So for example if women are less interested in what are called the 'hard' sciences that should not necessarily mean that they are actively discouraged across the board. However continuing to research why people make the choices they do is important.

Hard science to hard science, the pay gap is real. Only when comparing a woman in the sciences to a man in the humanities does something approaching parity occur, and even then it's not a guarantee.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Because you may need to hire additional workers if more than one woman is on leave wiping out gains?

That would only make sense if maternity leave made hiring a woman 23% less profitable than hiring a man. Either the wage gap isn't that large or it is based on other factors such as the jobs/hours worked by men and women.

The issue is not as straightforward as people make it out to be. Several factors need to be controlled for, such as those mentioned by Gallo. If, for example, men get paid more on average because on average they have more dangerous or less pleasant jobs then the wage gap wouldn't be a problem. Really what needs to be done is to destroy the horrific idea that it is a man's job to provide for his family while women are allowed to choose between a career and their kids. I would think that this social pressure on men to be the perfect breadwinner is also a reason why men commit suicide in higher numbers than women.

This is an excellent idea and I wouldn't be surprised if your insight was correct, at least in part.

[Communal Ecotopia]

http://youtu.be/k_m5AlsQqcs

Granted it's satire, but I think it's a concise way to bring awareness to the wage gap issue with women in the workplace. Discuss? I have an anxious feeling that many will dispute it.

I see a lot of responses on here that refuse to acknowledge the wage gap, and give alternative reasons for pay disparity based on sex; none of which are too compelling. In the end it seems that women stay quiet about it, and refuse to take action. For those that agree with the video, what can women do to fix this gap, and move towards equality in the labor market?

Just because you don't like facts because they disagree with what you were taught in some gender studies class doesn't change the fact that they're, well, facts.

Once again, there is no pay gap:

FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.

It's not a study, but I'll just leave this here and ask why the EEOC ruled in favor of Prof, Marsh then: http://www.westword.com/news/stephanie- ... on-7095872

[Longweather]

I looked at some of the data they posted. One thing I don't see mentioned in the abstract or data is any mention of networking. From personal experience, there is definitely a major advantage in creating connections to increase your chances of not only getting a job but to get a higher position. People tend to be biased towards those that they know or those that can be vouched for. Maybe, for some odd reason, many of the women in that study did a poor job at networking.

Can you point to any indication that the study did not control for networking?

On that link I had made the mistaken assumption that the article is behind a paywall (If it is then it's rather porous). I had looked at the abstract and the data sheets provided and none of them mentioned networking. Looking at the actual report, there is no mention of networking connections at all. None. There's mentions of comparison/control from years of experience, industry, "aspirations" (a vague term but one I would not generally conflate with networking), and global region. There's mentions of job hopping and working in "unconventional tracks" which are somewhat defined. Not at any one point did the report indicate it considered potential networking opportunities and networking as factors in earning a higher wage.

I looked at some of the data they posted. One thing I don't see mentioned in the abstract or data is any mention of networking. From personal experience, there is definitely a major advantage in creating connections to increase your chances of not only getting a job but to get a higher position. People tend to be biased towards those that they know or those that can be vouched for. Maybe, for some odd reason, many of the women in that study did a poor job at networking.

In that particular study, they may not have. However, a different study suggests that men benefit from networking much more than women do.

I see that in that second study that the apparent quantity of contacts doesn't help women make accurate predictions nor get elected to a top title for the field of being a Wall Street analyst. I see no mention of quality of contacts. Contacts can help but the better the position the better the contact is worth. I do find it odd, however, that the connections women make with companies they're analyzing stock for doesn't help them make better predictions. Do people give worse information to women? Would men in the exact same situation have a better chance? That study doesn't answer any of that.

[Settrah]

Why? What do you care?

Because I'm tired of all these fucking circle jerks. Ok? I've seen it a million times. "FEMINISMZ DOESNT CARE ABOUT MEN!" "YEAH? WELL FUCK YOU MAN FEMINISM DOESNT NEED TA CARE ABOUT MEN!" Blah blah blah blah fucking blah. It goes no where. Its the same shit every time. Ok?! We get it. Some of ya are feminists and some of ya aren't.

These threads turn up every week, and they'll forever turn up every week. Its like a circadian rhythm or a planetary cycle. You can't stop them. It's best just to ride with it.

The real question is why businesses are passing up a supposed 23% discount on labor costs.

Because the wage gap doesn't exist in the way most people think it does. When you tell people women earn X per dollar compared to men, most people think that means that women get paid less for the same type and amount of work. Such a thing doesn't exist in the West. If it did, women would be preferred by employers.

^ This.

But yeah, try getting a feminist to see logic, that doesn't end in them being a poor little oppressed victim...

[New Edom]

That would only make sense if maternity leave made hiring a woman 23% less profitable than hiring a man. Either the wage gap isn't that large or it is based on other factors such as the jobs/hours worked by men and women.

The issue is not as straightforward as people make it out to be. Several factors need to be controlled for, such as those mentioned by Gallo. If, for example, men get paid more on average because on average they have more dangerous or less pleasant jobs then the wage gap wouldn't be a problem. Really what needs to be done is to destroy the horrific idea that it is a man's job to provide for his family while women are allowed to choose between a career and their kids. I would think that this social pressure on men to be the perfect breadwinner is also a reason why men commit suicide in higher numbers than women.

This is an excellent idea and I wouldn't be surprised if your insight was correct, at least in part.

Yeah though I want to qualify that it's not a horrible idea, just an outdated one. Thanks to post industrialization and women having equal rihts to employment opportunities, it's not really necessary that women be provided for any longer. It's a difficult process though because our traditions are not just frivolous, they provide a sense of context for relationships. Nevertheless we do need to be more realistic about how things work now.

[Lamadia III]

Very simply, the wage gap does not exist, not in the West. If it did transpire that men earn more for x job than women, then employers would only hire women.
And this is not the case.

[Gisnegamesh]

Probably the biggest prank of the 21st century.

[Jello Biafra]

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.

This article talks about the actors/script study I mentioned. The man who organized that study also organized a study where people rated their doctors, which is talked about in greater detail in this article. Surprise surprise, people rated white male doctors as being better even when controlling for other factors. So your caveat of no employee/customer interaction would involve a lot of industries.

Further, I'm not saying that discrimination in and of itself is the only factor in play here. Negotiating skills could also have a role, but as I already pointed out, women are penalized to a greater degree than men are when initiating negotiations. Maternity leave may also be a factor, or perhaps more accurately, the employer's assumptions about maternity leave may also play a role.

[Otchitocha]

Doesn't exist in America.

[Jello Biafra]

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.


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


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.

Sure, but you can't assume that just because a woman is a woman or is a mother that she won't 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.

In general, the expression is "equal pay for equal work".

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.

The US Women's Soccer Team generated more revenue last year than the Mens' team did.

[Jello Biafra]

In that particular study, they may not have. However, a different study suggests that men benefit from networking much more than women do.

I see that in that second study that the apparent quantity of contacts doesn't help women make accurate predictions nor get elected to a top title for the field of being a Wall Street analyst. I see no mention of quality of contacts. Contacts can help but the better the position the better the contact is worth. I do find it odd, however, that the connections women make with companies they're analyzing stock for doesn't help them make better predictions. Do people give worse information to women? Would men in the exact same situation have a better chance? That study doesn't answer any of that.

Lots of very good questions there.

[Freefall11111]

Because the wage gap doesn't exist in the way most people think it does. When you tell people women earn X per dollar compared to men, most people think that means that women get paid less for the same type and amount of work. Such a thing doesn't exist in the West. If it did, women would be preferred by employers.

^ This.

But yeah, try getting a feminist to see logic, that doesn't end in them being a poor little oppressed victim...

I am a feminist, but thanks for trying.