Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

There's so the thing that traditionally/supposedly "feminine" occupations are often viewed as worth less pay on the whole. If you're going to argue that "the wage gap debate is dishonest because "masculine" and "feminine" fields are paid different, not males and females within them" you're also going to have to answer as to why those fields who happen to have a large majority of female workers so often are low wage work.

In fact, it's been brought to attention that as gender lines has been blurred, traditionally feminine fields that increase their male percentage rise faster in "wage/job status", while the wage growth of traditionally masculine professions lowers as the female part rises.

[ed boy]

If you're going to argue that "the wage gap debate is dishonest because "masculine" and "feminine" fields are paid different, not males and females within them" you're also going to have to answer as to why those fields who happen to have a large majority of female workers so often are low wage work.

That's statistics. If an equal number of males and females are searching for jobs, and the females are more likely to go for lower paying areas (due to gender roles), then it's a mathematical inevitability that areas with mostly females will be lower paying.

[palsch]

That link doesn't account for a number of factors which artificially inflate the wage gap - a more accurate report is here, which gives evidence for an actual wage gap of between 4.8% and 7.1%

That depends on what you view as 'artificial' factors. The raw numbers I linked are for full time, salaried workers in the same field. That, to me, controls the primary factors we care about when talking about direct wage gaps (similar work, similar hours). Pretty much every other factor is something that should or could be addressed.

I also have a few issues with that study. They used some extremely vague variables that allowed for huge flexibility in their numbers. Rather than starting with numbers like those I cited, comparing full-time to full-time, they compared a largely part-time female workforce to a largely full-time male workforce, meaning that the adjustment value for part-time work was always going to compensate for the majority of the gap. Somehow in taking that one step they close far more of the gap between full-time workers than any study that starts from raw full-time data. That smells off to me.

[scriver]

If you're going to argue that "the wage gap debate is dishonest because "masculine" and "feminine" fields are paid different, not males and females within them" you're also going to have to answer as to why those fields who happen to have a large majority of female workers so often are low wage work.

That's statistics. If an equal number of males and females are searching for jobs, and the females are more likely to go for lower paying areas (due to gender roles), then it's a mathematical inevitability that areas with mostly females will be lower paying.

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making.

[ed boy]

I also have a few issues with that study. They used some extremely vague variables that allowed for huge flexibility in their numbers. Rather than starting with numbers like those I cited, comparing full-time to full-time, they compared a largely part-time female workforce to a largely full-time male workforce, meaning that the adjustment value for part-time work was always going to compensate for the majority of the gap. Somehow in taking that one step they close far more of the gap between full-time workers than any study that starts from raw full-time data. That smells off to me.

In the study they investigate the hourly wage, not the total wage, which accounts for part-time vs full-time discrepancies. The results (found on page 27) indicate the following:
-being older (up to around 50), being married, having more children, being white and working full time benefit both males and females, but benefit males more
-Working overtime benefits both males and females, but benefits females more
-Males and females both benefit from education, but which benefits more depends on the level of education
-Females have a higher "base" pay before the above are taken into account

If you're going to argue that "the wage gap debate is dishonest because "masculine" and "feminine" fields are paid different, not males and females within them" you're also going to have to answer as to why those fields who happen to have a large majority of female workers so often are low wage work.

That's statistics. If an equal number of males and females are searching for jobs, and the females are more likely to go for lower paying areas (due to gender roles), then it's a mathematical inevitability that areas with mostly females will be lower paying.

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making.

To give a more expanded version, females and males are pressured to go into different job areas. The areas that females are pressured to go into are lower paying for various reasons (e.g. teaching has lots of time off during school holidays, mechanical engineers can pick up administrative work a lot easier than the other way round, etc). Therefore, given a lower paying job field, it's likely to have more females than males.

[scriver]

Ed boy, that still isn't relevant. I am asking you to ask yourself why that such a majority of female majority fields are low/er wage fields.

[DJ]

I think the results are skewed by the top 1% earners. CEOs are predominantly male. If you go a bit lower on the white collar scale, I'd say 60%+ doctors are women, at least in my corner of the world. It also seems there's more women lawyers in my town, though it's pretty close. But I'd still expect the local men lawyers to earn more than women on average because there's more of them with private practices while women are mostly in public administration. And while the second pays less, it's also a lot less stressful, so I reckon women opt for it so they can have children (if you take a year off for maternity leave in a private practice you'll lose all your clients).

[GlyphGryph]

I know this was a few pages back now, but...

Why do we try to differentiate between biology and (deeply engrained) culture, anyway?

Because biology doesn't give a fuck about your culture, biology is biology. I find it frivolous that people try to explain the differences in muscle gain between men and women using sociology.

I just want to clarify here that, scientifically, your biology gives quite a few fucks about your culture. Humans are adaptive organisms - our biology, even to the extent of our genetic expression, is quite heavily reliant on our environment, and human culture plays a huge role in that environment. Even ignoring the more direct cultural influences (food, drugs, the fact that we don't pump little girls full of testosterone being a cultural thing) on biology, development of biological structures can't be disentangled from their cultural confines. The brains of people who grow up listening to different types of music are actually physically different. There's also the fact that humanity has been around long enough that many of our cultural elements throughout history have had profound results on the spread and distribution of genes - evolution in action, responding to the environment we ourselves have made.

"Because biology doesn't give a fuck about your culture, biology is biology" is an incredibly ignorant statement, and patently untrue, and the prevalence of lung cancer in different cultures is, alone, evidence enough of that.

[ed boy]

Ed boy, that still isn't relevant. I am asking you to ask yourself why that such a majority of female majority fields are low/er wage fields.

Because gender roles influence females into being attracted to such positions. I don't know how to express it more simple than that.

[EnigmaticHat]

I'd also like to point out that we have been, for a while now, surgically altering babies with ambiguous genitalia.  Sometimes without informing the parents.  Not sure how much this still happens but it happened a lot in history.

What you eat is also influenced heavily by your environment and society, as is your access to medicine.  So yeah I'd say society can have a fairly big say in your biology.

As a little aside to the main debate access to medicine is another gender inequality.  You all know what I'm talking about.

[DreamThorn]

I was attempting to write a post about how my gender-uncertainty is caused by gender inequality, but in trying to explain it, I have gained new insight into myself.

I now think I'm a straight male with a tendency to fall in love with skilled women.

However, I hate being classified as a straight male, because of all the stereotypes that go with it.  I don't like watching sports, I'm not crude and dirty, I don't watch porn, I don't harass women, I don't like large breasts, I don't eat much meat, I never try to get drunk, I do like children, etc.

It seems a little self-respect goes a long way toward getting thrown out of gender roles, no matter which sex you are.

[scrdest]

I think that for most people, at least people worth bothering about, the stereotypes are not about men, but a subtle and ancient subspecies of male Homo sapiens commonly referred to as 'asshole'.

[Vector]

Ed boy, that still isn't relevant. I am asking you to ask yourself why that such a majority of female majority fields are low/er wage fields.

Because gender roles influence females into being attracted to such positions. I don't know how to express it more simple than that.

Food for thought.

Sorry for the source--I couldn't find any of the more reputable ones I've heard the information at on short notice.

[Glowcat]

Oh hey thread, I came across this BBC documentary and thought of you! Or one of your horrid abomination brethren. I can't tell you guys apart sometimes.

Still watching it but it reminds me of all our wonderful conversations so far, and I figure it could provide evidence about the underlying (traditional) sexism in our society.

[Vector]

Thanks for the link! I thought it was pretty informative and fair.