Gender pay gap- real or just a result of bad negotiations?

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL that a pretty stupid anaology but whatever.

Why? The principle of indirect observation is exactly the same.

VinLieger wrote: »

Of course they don't have asking about unconscious bias but that's the very point im making because you can't have one like that its impossible to prove 100%.

You're right. Nothing can be proven with 100% accuracy. But we try as much as possible to keep the certainty high...

It definitely exists but saying its the reason for specific thing's in society is just your get out of jail free card when

Sure, the correlation and causation are often difficult to distinguish, especially in social studies. But the alternative is to say nothing does matter. There is nothing we can do. We have to at least try and should we fail, we'll try something else.

all the other statistical data is pointing against you

What other statistical data?! Sources please, from a reputable source - not Daily Mail.

PeterParker957

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL that a pretty stupid anaology but whatever.

Of course they don't have asking about unconscious bias but that's the very point im making because you can't have one like that its impossible to prove 100%.

It definitely exists but saying its the reason for specific thing's in society is just your get out of jail free card when all the other statistical data is pointing against you

Bold bit +1,000

Suuure - quantum physics/da feelz - two sides of the same coin!!!

Jesus wept!!

wakka12

grogi wrote: »

Of course it is a generalisation. I personally don't know you, your nieces etc to draw any conclusions about particular cases. It doesn't have to be dirt, I hope you understood the given example. It is a pattern that is constantly repeated.

When we talk about a society, about statistics etc - it is a generalisation by definition.

That example was bad though. You talked about young girls being condemned for playing in dirt or whatever but if a young boy wanted to play with dolls or dresses or makeup it'd be ten time worse, and they'd be bullied by their peers on top of that. Just a small example to counter your women have everything so hard bs

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

What other statistical data?! Sources please, from a reputable source - not Daily Mail.

EVERY report on the gender pay gap that claims there is one but doesn't use like for like jobs

grogi wrote: »

Why? The principle of indirect observation is exactly the same.

How is the principle of indirect observation EXACTLY the same as proving/disproving unconcious bias

PeterParker957

wakka12 wrote: »

That example was bad though. You talked about young girls being condemned for playing in dirt or whatever but if a young boy wanted to play with dolls or dresses or makeup it'd be ten time worse, and they'd be bullied by their peers on top of that. Just a small example to counter your women have everything so hard bs

I once got a toy hoover and ironing board for Christmas - mid 70s sometime.

My aunt (who bought it) was told by my mam that I wanted a football and the Shoot annual - which she got me.

"Mark my words - she'll turn out to be one of them". Now I know that that means now!!!

40 odd years later am not. Still love me footy tho!!!

PeterParker957

VinLieger wrote: »

EVERY report on the gender pay gap that claims there is one but doesn't use like for like jobs

The reason for the "denial" is that there is no gender pay gap.

End of. Done. None.

People who work less get paid less.

Sinead thingy off the telly ? Currently suing TV3 ???

6 years at the company - Alan Hughes has 15 and other skills such as writing and directing.

Why the hell should she get the same pay ????

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I once got a toy hoover and ironing board for Christmas - mid 70s sometime.

My aunt (who bought it) was told by my mam that I wanted a football and the Shoot annual - which she got me.

"Mark my words - she'll turn out to be one of them". Now I know that that means now!!!

40 odd years later am not. Still love me footy tho!!!

That's exactly what I mean - you had (and I still hope she is in good health) smart mother. She did not pushed you into the social convention and it worked great for you, you pursued the carrier you wanted.

Unfortunately loads of girls (and boys) don't. Stereotypes are pushed onto them. Like that boy who wants to play with dolls will hear that it is not manly and needs to do some boyish stuff. Boys are discouraged from such behaviour and encourage to engage in more boyish play - that stimulates competition and spacial awareness.

We (I am not pointing fingers - men and women) teach boys to be fighters, we teach girls not to. And as a result they behave differently in adult life. There are tons of such examples - why is it so difficult to acknowledge that it happens?

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The reason for the "denial" is that there is no gender pay gap.

Do you have any statistically significant data to back it up? Or is it simply your personal observation of a very few cases?

meeeeh

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The reason for the "denial" is that there is no gender pay gap.

End of. Done. None.

People who work less get paid less.

Sinead thingy off the telly ? Currently suing TV3 ???

6 years at the company - Alan Hughes has 15 and other skills such as writing and directing.

Why the hell should she get the same pay ????

To paraphrase: there is no pay gap because I say so. And I say so because I know. End of.

There is more concrete evidence in Jehovah Witnesses preaching end of the world than in your posts.

jimmycrackcorm

PeterParker957 wrote:

Brian Dobson set a new Irish virtue signalling record when saying he was "baffled how Sharon ni Bheolain earns less than I do

He has more experience and qualifications as a journalist. That's how!

I can't tell the difference about the experience when they both read the news.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's not a pay gap then, that's an earnings gap as there are no women doing the same job as a man for the same time and with the same experience that are also being paid less

grogi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very true. I will be the last to state otherwise.

Women don't (statistically, there are of course exceptions to the rule) pursue careers in STEM not because they are less capable, but because as girls they are constantly taught that boys are better at mathematics, physics - professions associated with brilliance.

Now, women might be actually be less capable, but as long as we don't eliminate the educational and any other bias, we will not be able to tell the impact of the gender itself and not the gender stereotype.


For full disclosure - I am a man. And I have personally witnessed gender pay gap in the like for like scenario.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Do you have any statistically significant data to back it up? Or is it simply your personal observation of a very few cases?

Again every report that claims there is one but doesn't compare like for like jobs is indirect proof there is no gender pay gap, because if there was you can bet money they would be doing that comparison

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Women don't (statistically, there are of course exceptions to the rule) pursue careers in STEM not because they are less capable, but because as girls they are constantly taught that boys are better at mathematics, physics - professions associated with brilliance.

Lovely, more absolutely massive generalisations, that happens but please stop with your sweeping statements that imply it is happening to every single woman and girl

professore

grogi wrote: »

Very true. I will be the last to state otherwise.

Women don't (statistically, there are of course exceptions to the rule) pursue careers in STEM not because they are less capable, but because as girls they are constantly taught that boys are better at mathematics, physics - professions associated with brilliance.

Now, women might be actually be less capable, but as long as we don't eliminate the educational and any other bias, we will not be able to tell the impact of the gender itself and not the gender stereotype.


For full disclosure - I am a man. And I have personally witnessed gender pay gap in the like for like scenario.

My daughter is well capable of pursuing a career in mathematics or physics at university level and kicked ass at it in secondary school. You know why she doesn't? She's more interested in the biological sciences, like most of her female peers. Her male peers are more interested in physics and IT in general and allergic to the biological sciences. This is repeated over and over up and down the country.

She got every encouragement from her physical scientist dad and mechanical engineering mum to pursue whatever field interested her. So I'm sorry but your theory is wrong.

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

That's not a pay gap then, that's an earnings gap as there are no women doing the same job as a man for the same time and with the same experience that are also being paid less

There is unadjusted pay gap and adjusted pay gap (which takes into account all the factors mentioned in this thread - experience, hours worked etc.).

And surpise surprise - the scientists aren't a bunch of idiots who don't understand the domain. There is research to adjusted pay gap as well - that still states that women earn substantially less at same position (in 1990 it was around 30% less).

A Meta-Analysis of the International Gender Wage Gap (10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00256.x) or recent research done by CMI: http://www.managers.org.uk/insights/gender-diversity-and-the-pay-gap. So please stop pulling facts out of the air that nobody compares like for like or that the gender pay gap does not exist. Because you are simply misinformed.

I will not engage into further discussion until any concrete facts are brought to the table.

professore

VinLieger wrote: »

Lovely, more absolutely massive generalisations, that happens but please stop with your sweeping statements that imply it is happening to every single woman and girl

Generalisations are useful. Just because you can point out one or two counterexamples "my granny smoked 80 woodbines a day and lived to 100" does NOT mean smoking is good for your health.

professore

grogi wrote: »

There is unadjusted pay gap and adjusted pay gap (which takes into account all the factors mentioned in this thread - experience, hours worked etc.).

And surpise surprise - the scientists aren't a bunch of idiots who don't understand the domain. There is research to adjusted pay gap as well - that still states that women earn substantially less at same position (in 1990 it was around 30% less).

A Meta-Analysis of the International Gender Wage Gap (10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00256.x) or recent research done by CMI: http://www.managers.org.uk/insights/gender-diversity-and-the-pay-gap. So please stop pulling facts out of the air that nobody compares like for like or that the gender pay gap does not exist. Because you are simply misinformed.

I will not engage into further discussion until any concrete facts are brought to the table.

I don't see anything in here comparing like with like in the "infographic". If the women managers are managing the local corner shop are being compared with Fortune 500 men then of course there is going to be a disparity.

professore

The lowest one is the ACTUAL gender pay gap. The rest are comparing apples and oranges.

VinLieger

professore wrote: »

Generalisations are useful. Just because you can point out one or two counterexamples "my granny smoked 80 woodbines a day and lived to 100" does NOT mean smoking is good for your health.

Yes when discussing them with statistical facts to back them up, we know 100% smoking is bad for you, but there is no data available to claim 100% of female students are being told that boys are better than they are yet the poster i was replying to keeps making sweeping generalisations implying such things are happening

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

professore

You know why I actually care about this stuff? Not because I'm sexist, but because I believe in the truth. The truth doesn't care about your feelings.

The same way I care about climate change deniers, anti vaxxers or fake news. It matters. It matters a lot if you are shaping society based on false information. What I see is a perpetual attempt to make women feel like they are the helpless victims of society, and that men don't have any of the same issues and are sex crazed brutes. It's absolutely crazy.

grogi

professore wrote: »

The lowest one is the ACTUAL gender pay gap. The rest are comparing apples and oranges.

The lowest one is adjusted gender gap. The one at top is unadjusted gender gap. And women still consistently earn less.

grogi

professore wrote: »

You know why I actually care about this stuff? Not because I'm sexist, but because I believe in the truth. The truth doesn't care about your feelings.

The same way I care about climate change deniers, anti vaxxers or fake news. It matters. It matters a lot if you are shaping society based on false information.

Of course it matters. And I am glad you've brought climate change, anti-vaccine movement etc. All of those are not based on hard, scientific research.

What I see is a perpetual attempt to make women feel like they are the helpless victims of society, and that men don't have any of the same issues and are sex crazed brutes. It's absolutely crazy.

To some extend. Those who really really really want will still prevail.

But we shouldn't also deny (like you and me don't deny climate change) that the stereotypes exist and they are influencing women and men. I am also not saying that women will be happier in the high paying professions. I don't know that.

Stereotypes do originate somewhere, but we must be very careful not to let them cloud our judgement in individual cases. If the girl wants to become a researcher in biology - nothing wrong with that. But this decision should be made because she wants to do that, not because there is a stereotype that suggest she would be better at it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

grogi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes. To some extend for sure. Systemic discrimination (on the scale of society) that is caused by stereotyping.

In US it is especially visible when talking about different ethnic backgrounds, but gender discrimination has exactly same characteristics.


I was looking for definition of System Discrimination, and found this: https://www.hrzone.com/hr-glossary/what-is-systemic-discrimination

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

grogi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And why they don't have those qualifications or attitude? Is it only genetic?!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

grogi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why are you bringing disabled, Muslims and lesbian here? Do you think less of them?!

The truth is that the society as a whole is responsible of that discrimination, mainly because of the previously quoted stereotypes. I cannot say it frequently enough - girls are (warning, sweeping generalisation) brought up differently than boys. Some things are more girlish and some more boyish apparently... As a result those girls (warning, sweeping generations) turn into less ambitious women - and much less of them end up in senior management positions.

I am pretty sure that when it comes down to deciding who becomes next CEO, the choice is made fairly (it might be even a bit biased towards women), but the damage was done earlier. Much earlier... Latest research suggest that at 6 years old girls already think they are much less capable than boys do.

grogi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you believe that difference in preference is purely genetic?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are observing the results, not the causes.

Don't you think that it would look different if girls were not told to play with dolls (generalisation) and thus developing their maternity instincts, but run around with plastic guns, so they develop more cut-throat bitch attitude?

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

But we shouldn't also deny (like you and me don't deny climate change) that the stereotypes exist and they are influencing women and men. I am also not saying that women will be happier in the high paying professions. I don't know that.

Stereotypes do originate somewhere, but we must be very careful not to let them cloud our judgement in individual cases. If the girl wants to become a researcher in biology - nothing wrong with that. But this decision should be made because she wants to do that, not because there is a stereotype that suggest she would be better at it.

What can we really do to stop people from believing stereotypes? Most people who don't conform are just seen as not conforming and are just considered exceptions.

I know several people raising children right now who have little girls that are stereotypical and little boys that are stereotypical too. The next generation is already being brought into this system.

I see a lot of people pointing and yelling at the problem but I also see a society that seems to function quite well.

A girl who wants to become a researcher in biology can if she wants to BUT there is a kind of invisible guiding force that tries to convince her that she shouldn't. I get it but what kind of social engineering would we have to do to get rid of that invisible force?

What do we do with people who refuse to help dismantle stereotypes?

Say a stressed out single mother with 2 boys and 1 girl in tow comes bowling into Smyths and gruffly asks the staff "where are the girls toys". The staff try to explain you know we don't have boys and girls toys anymore it's just toys. The mother tells them she just wants a princess doll for her girl and 2 racing car toys for her boys. What can you do there?

Arrest her? Take the kids away? It sounds ludicrous but do you seriously think the kind of social engineering you seem to be suggesting would be possible without almost 100% participation from everyone?

What about women who genuinely want to find a rich and ambitious guy who can be the breadwinner while she raises the kids? They definitely exist and they definitely don't help you to dismantle stereotypes.

Probably there a millions of people out there in the world who conform to these stereotypes and if it's this "unconscious bias" that causes the pay gap then I'm wondering what you think is a realistic approach?

I know you could argue that surely doing something is better than doing nothing but what's the point in spending 10 or 20 years trying to close a pay gap that just won't go away?

Even if we say that men are maybe driven to earn more then we have to ask who is responsible for that drive? If a man has a wife and 2 daughters and he is barred from earning more than an unmarried woman on the same career path because "muh pay gap" then isn't that ultimately a net loss for women? Surely having that man earning more would be a net benefit to women?

Should we force women into the workplace?

How do we get rid of these stereotypes without crossing a line into punishing women who actually are fine with conforming to the stereotypical gender roles?

grogi

Saruhashi wrote: »

What can we really do to stop people from believing stereotypes? Most people who don't conform are just seen as not conforming and are just considered exceptions.

/.../

Should we force women into the workplace?

How do we get rid of these stereotypes without crossing a line into punishing women who actually are fine with conforming to the stereotypical gender roles?

Excellent questions - I really don't know. There are various ideas what to do, all with their flaws.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

The lowest one is adjusted gender gap. The one at top is unadjusted gender gap. And women still consistently earn less.

No the lowest one is a like for like comparison at it shows the real gender pay gap is negligible at .8% which is why no study ever uses that compariason as it shows how much of a myth the pay gap is

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

So you believe that difference in preference is purely genetic?

Does it matter if the difference is purely genetic or otherwise?

If women have a strong preference for careers with family friendly hours then we should allow them to pursue those careers.

It seems like you are proposing that we "fix" them at a young age so that the very concept of a family friendly career isn't even on their minds.

It feels too close to an idea that we can mind control kids into fixing statistics so that things will look better on paper.

I don't know what we would do with all the children who want, and are happy, to conform to traditional gender roles? Tell them that they can't?

Are we going to manipulate our daughters into playing with certain toys and wearing certain clothes and watching certain TV shows "because you're going to go into STEM some day"?

Saruhashi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah but boys get T-Shirts with "Superhero" printed on them and girls get T-Shirts with "Beautiful" printed on them so society is completely f*cked.

You see, we need to control how the children think.

If a girl thinks she wants to grow up to be a nurse and marry a rich prince then we need to get inside their minds and make them think that being an astronaut is so much cooler and who needs a prince anyway hawhawhaw.

They've been given too much freedom for too long and look where it's got us. We've got stereotypes all over the place. We've got a pay gap! Can you believe that?

We've got men motivated to earn by thinking they need money to get a good woman and we've got women thinking they are happy to work less and earn less if it means they can have more time with the kids. OUTRAGEOUS!

Fix their minds, I say! Make it so the thought doesn't even enter their little heads.

Breadwinner fathers and stay at home mothers? You can't build a successful society like that, no sir.

grogi

Saruhashi wrote: »

Does it matter if the difference is purely genetic or otherwise?

Yes, it matters. If it is genetic, be it. Can't really do much about it. It is like men are (generalisation) stronger - because of genetics.

But if the influence is external, it means that females are not treated the same way males are. And it is unfair.

Are we going to manipulate our daughters into playing with certain toys and wearing certain clothes and watching certain TV shows "because you're going to go into STEM some day"?

At one year old they don't care. So get them all of them, not only girlish or boyish toys. Every time you interact with the baby ask yourself - would you do exactly the same if the baby was opposite sex? If you can honestly answer that yes, you are not discriminating.

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

No the lowest one is a like for like comparison at it shows the real gender pay gap is negligible at .8% which is why no study ever uses that compariason as it shows how much of a myth the pay gap is

Are you going to invent your own terminology now?! There is no 'real' gender pay gap. Both - adjusted and unadjusted - are equally based in figures and equally real.

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

You are observing the results, not the causes.

Don't you think that it would look different if girls were not told to play with dolls (generalisation) and thus developing their maternity instincts, but run around with plastic guns, so they develop more cut-throat bitch attitude?

I think it would be a very different world, yes. Would it be better or worse? I don't know, probably about the same.

When you talk about the causes we have to really establish if the results are bad or not.

We are looking at the bottom line and saying "men earn more than women and it's bad". That paints this whole thing as a problem that needs to be fixed.

The way I would see it is that men and women have more freedom in western countries now than they did at any other point in history. If a woman wants to earn more she can but in general they don't.

Women might statistically spend more time raising the kids while their statistically male partners might statistically spend more time at work. We want to say "it shouldn't be this way" but nobody is really forcing anyone into anything.

So now we are left looking for invisible forces that maybe have more subtle influence. The thing is that a lot of our proposed solutions involve replacing "their" invisible force with "our" invisible force.

I don't know what I can do about my unconscious bias. Look for it. Analyse it. Dismantle it. Replace it with what?

If the pay gap is created and maintained by unconscious bias then it's fair to ask if the people who want to tear the whole thing down have some biases of their own?

meeeeh

Saruhashi wrote: »

Does it matter if the difference is purely genetic or otherwise?

If women have a strong preference for careers with family friendly hours then we should allow them to pursue those careers.

I grew up in a country with a gender gap of about 2%. The difference? Female employment is almost identical to male, women don't work reduced hours and wage differences in general are lower. But all this is enabled by good parental leave that can be shared and subsidised good quality childcare. At the same time country is also very high in some 'good to be child in' indexes. There are plenty of other negative issues but gender inequality is low. Funnily enough there is very little talk of women wanting to work family friendly hours.

This debate just assumes that women will more likely want to stay at home, that taking out 6 months or year for birth makes such a huge difference in job experience and so. Most of those things are just notions that can be changed with better family friendly policies and then we can look at gender pay gap and I am positive it will be lower. But don't tell me there are no gender based issues that are societal.

PeterParker957

I read a story in Take a Break the other week (I just buy it for the puzzles!!!) and a woman was pregnant. Bought loads of blue for the baby.

Baby comes, she's a girl.

First thing from the mother "we had to rush out an buy everything in pink, we didn't even have an outfit to take her home in".

Yes you did. The nonsense starts with women, sorry sistas but it does.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Are you going to invent your own terminology now?! There is no 'real' gender pay gap. Both - adjusted and unadjusted - are equally based in figures and equally real.

One is an earnings gap and one is a pay gap, using the word "adjusted" is a pathetic attempt to be able to keep using the word pay to try and trick people into thinking there is a real pay gap

grogi

Saruhashi wrote: »

When you talk about the causes we have to really establish if the results are bad or not.

That's a different discussion. I already stated that I don't know if it would be better. Right now their choice is (statistically) narrowed.

We are looking at the bottom line and saying "men earn more than women and it's bad". That paints this whole thing as a problem that needs to be fixed.

I want for men and women to be treated equally. I want them to be given equal opportunities. And that's not the case atm.

The way I would see it is that men and women have more freedom in western countries now than they did at any other point in history. If a woman wants to earn more she can but in general they don't.

I'm not worse, thus I am good enough!?

Women might statistically spend more time raising the kids while their statistically male partners might statistically spend more time at work. We want to say "it shouldn't be this way" but nobody is really forcing anyone into anything.

NOOOOOOOOOO!?! Yes, shouting intended! What idealistic buble are you in?!

I would love to have paternity benefit and stay with kids at home for couple of months. But I can't...

So now we are left looking for invisible forces that maybe have more subtle influence. The thing is that a lot of our proposed solutions involve replacing "their" invisible force with "our" invisible force.

I don't know what I can do about my unconscious bias. Look for it. Analyse it. Dismantle it. Replace it with what?

Actively counterbalance it?!

If the pay gap is created and maintained by unconscious bias then it's fair to ask if the people who want to tear the whole thing down have some biases of their own?

Absolutely.

PeterParker957

meeeeh wrote: »

This debate just assumes that women will more likely want to stay at home, that taking out 6 months or year for birth makes such a huge difference in job experience and so. Most of those things are just notions that can be changed with better family friendly policies and then we can look at gender pay gap and I am positive it will be lower. But don't tell me there are no gender based issues that are societal.

Looking at it from the other side, I work in education - there tends to be mad busy times built right into the year.

Several times over the last few years I've had colleagues announce they are pregnant "we're due in August!!" and I know that I'll need to dig out the Prozac prescription again as my workload will double, even getting in temps they won't know the routine.

The pattern goes thus then... back in with baby, coo coo coo, eventually returns to work etc.

Oh and insists on being exactly where I am pay and conditions wise!!!! No way!!!

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The nonsense starts with women, sorry sistas but it does.

That was already established, wasn't it? It is not battle of shifting fault at the other gender.

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

Yes, it matters. If it is genetic, be it. Can't really do much about it. It is like men are (generalisation) stronger - because of genetics.

But if the influence is external, it means that females are not treated the same way males are. And it is unfair.

If there are genetic differences then why wouldn't we expect to see that filter into all aspects of life?

You appear to be saying "men and women are not the same so treat them the same".

That doesn't make sense. Either they are the same or they are not?

If they are not the same then this would naturally have quite far reaching consequences for the species.

It's quite a bizarre contradiction. We want to acknowledge that men and women are different when it comes to certain things but at the same time we want them to be treated the same too.

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh and insists on being exactly where I am pay and conditions wise!!!! No way!!!

Why? If the job she does is equally good as yours?!

You should be enumerated fairly for your double efforts, but after that it is the results that matter.

PeterParker957

grogi wrote: »

Why? If the job she does is equally good as yours?!

You should be enumerated fairly for your double efforts, but after that it is the results that matter.

But it isn't though is it ?

I"m covering her work and my own and we are treated as though we have equal responsibilities, experience and skills.

We don't, I cover for her.