Wage Gap Between the Sexes

[BlaqueKatt]

edit to add: that ban bossy thing is laughable, to the point i won't even address it. if you can't watch their promo video and realize the questions they ask the kids are misleading, and that these women in positions of power and wealth are arguing against a word that had 0 impact on their ability to gain that power and wealth.... yeah.

erm, what I posted as noted in the sentence preceding the link is a shampoo commercial from years before the "ban bossy" even started. :/


And saying in effect, traditional* gender roles aren't sexism? that's what's making me bluescreen. That's EXACTLY sexism because there is zero basis for "men work, women raise kids" except sexism, period.


*headdesk*

Sexist attitudes are frequently based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles, and is thus built into many societal institutions.

*arguing it's "part of society" is argumentum ad antiquitatem, heck it's even one of the freakin' examples.

[siead_lietrathua]

But they don't. This is what I keep saying when I refer to control studies. Control studies account for motherhood and remove it as a factor. They compare the genders on completely equal grounds and still find a significant wage gap.

... depending on industry. i've said, repeatedly, how the gap varies from 46 to 6% diffrence in pay (or 64-94% of male wage) depending on which industry it's in. that's why the 77% figure is misleading.
hell, in some industries women make 110%+ of what men do when they are unmarried and childless. i posted an article on it earlier, i didn't just pull it outta my ass.

Your sister is not every mother. Again, the status of being a mother is detrimental regardless of whether or not it actually affects job performance. Your sister and a woman that has a stay at home husband both suffer a wage gap.

my own fault for a lack of clarification. i should have said she was primary child rearer. were she the full time working one, and my brother a stay at home dad, she would make hand-over-fist more than me because of career diffrence.

So with a host of evidence stretching back to 1940 about systematic gender discrimination in the work place that begins the moment a woman sends out her resume, you're still going to argue that it's a minority factor?

DID I SAY THAT?!
i'm saying it's not 77%. that it's exaggerated. that there are other factors in wage gap other than the person who sets the wages being a sexist jerk. when you start factoring that stuff into things, the gap lessens and lessens until you realize it's a small bit of the gap left for sexist intentions.
and sexism sucks. if it's only a 1% diffrence becaouse the boss is a sexist douche, then it should be fixed. but if it's a 10% gap caused by the male puttling more overtime than the female, that's not sexism.

I don't know how many more ways I can explain what a control study is. >.>
A control study takes this into account. This is what I'm trying to explain.

did i say it doesn't?? i said when they take those factors into account the gap lessens, or is more explained.
take construction. huge wage gaps between men and women. but a lot of the gap is in forms of thing like higher pay for working risker locations, and the men tend to be the ones volunteering for the more hazardous work. so that's not a gap created by sexist wage-makers. it's a gap created by willingness to do the work to get the pay benefit. if someone is unwilling to do the work, regardless of gender, they don't get the hazard pay.
but, in a study, it shows male labourer X makes 10$ an hour where female labourer y makes 6$ an hour, because both are listed as labourers. so some people will just read that part, fight over the 40% diffrence, and never care that there is a justification for it.

In which case I am going to go with what the evidence the experts uncovered tells me is correct. Rather than what I personally think is right. Because I am not a professor of gender studies, a sociologist or a statistical mathematician. I'm a dude on a couch with Google and too much time on his hands. <cough>

nor am i going with the data i'm making up out of thin air. you guys keep making it sound like i'm arguing there is no sexism at all ever. but i'm not. i'm just saying that the wage gap has other factors, some of which is explained. sure, the sexism needs to be addressed, but the entirety of the gap isn't sexist!

Blaquekatt:
first off, forgot to multiquote, oops!

sorry about missing the video link. for some reason my brain though the "found it" was part of your signature. i remember that ad, and i still don't get it. people call male bosses "bossy" too. hell, they probably get called hella worse things. part of being in a leadership role is being able to take people's shit, regardless of gender. why should we stop using valid words for a boss being a jerk when the boss happens to be a woman? if it's acceptable to call a male employer a "bossy asshole", then a women shouldn't be exempt from the same scrutiny. same wit the other stuff on there. men can be called selfish for working OT, vain for being over-grooming, showoffs.... they're all insults that can go both ways, but only being shown as used towards women to make the point they want to make.

also, arguing that women are forced into the parenting role because of cultural tradition ignores that the whole women being the child-bearers is what formed the culture. women are biologically wired to have and nurture kids, and we build successive cultures around that concept.
the cultures may not have always been good to women, or non sexist, but if we start making it sound like the only reason women stay home and raise kids is because of tradition, we ignore biological impulse.


tl;dr?:
i don't know why i have to keep clarifying myself. i'm sick of people responding to me like i'm claiming there is no sexism at all, or that sexism is justified and right. i am not claiming, nor have ever said in this entire damn thread, that sexism is not effecting wage gap at all.
all i've said is that there are other things that also contribute to wage gaps beyond the gender of participants, including things like obligations outside of work.
at this point i'm just sick of repeating myself.

[Andara Bledin]

What ISN'T getting discussed is that women who are actively seeking employment out employ men in virtually every cohort (on average). The difference is especially stark amongst millenials where the pay gap is also currently the smallest.

This is still sexism at its finest.

At first, it hurts young, low-wage males, but ultimately, it's the women who end up getting shafted because they only reason they're getting hired is so that they can be paid less further down the road.

... depending on industry. i've said, repeatedly, how the gap varies from 46 to 6% diffrence in pay (or 64-94% of male wage) depending on which industry it's in. that's why the 77% figure is misleading.

Thank you for posting a figure that shows, definitively, that women are discriminated against via wages.

[siead_lietrathua]

Thank you for posting a figure that shows, definitively, that women are discriminated against via wages.

again, i've never said there wasn't sexism at all. i also said that those numbers come before explanations like overtime, hazard pay and etc, that it's not ALL sexism based. there are varying factors, including sexism as part of that variance.

you're more likely to find the sexism where the percentage of wage difference is lower, because there are less variant factors. like the construction example i posted above. more variables in terms of hazard pay etc create a bigger, non-sexist gap. whereas with a 'desk' or 'designing' job like architect, having a 6% gap could be entirely sexist since there is less chance of a reason behind the variance.

we can't just look at percentages, and think that's it. it needs to be looked at closer.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

This is still sexism at its finest.

At first, it hurts young, low-wage males, but ultimately, it's the women who end up getting shafted because they only reason they're getting hired is so that they can be paid less further down the road.


Thank you for posting a figure that shows, definitively, that women are discriminated against via wages.

We're not disagreeing about sexism in wages. But I'm not seeing the correction you are regarding this. It doesn't get better for "men" as a class because some of them are being paid more if they're being paid at all. Because there is no age where unemployment numbers correct, what you're actually seeing is systemic denial of access to the job market amongst men. I'm seeing two distinct problems here that are connected, but the inability of young men to enter the market will depress their future earnings. 2 years sitting on the coach eating Cheetos does not play well on a resume. Most bosses think themselves geniuses for spotting and discounting candidates based on employment gaps. Would someone prefer to earn less or have a job at all. Most would prefer the job since you can always look to move up from there either internally or from hopping jobs. You'll see the wages correct in a very odd way as gen x and the boomers leave the market.

[HYHYBT]

And saying in effect, traditional* gender roles aren't sexism? that's what's making me bluescreen. That's EXACTLY sexism because there is zero basis for "men work, women raise kids" except sexism, period.

Not quite *zero* basis, no. Pregnancy and giving birth always falls on women, and *all other things being equal* it's simpler for the one physically equipped for nursing to be the one who takes care of the child until it's weaned. At that point, it's more likely to be easier all around to carry on with that division than to reverse it.