Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

Eric Cartman

true-or-false wrote: »

You still dont understand the concept of the gender pay gap.

No one is saying you should be able to take a huge career break while staying on the same point in your career track as your peers. It's about trying to accommodate the women that want to stay on their career track, that want to find ways to get back to work quicker, like coming back part time or working from home. Or challenging the gender norms that encourage women to take on all the care work and make men feel like they have to prioritise working over taking on caring responsibilities themselves.

Many couples want a child, but unfortunately only the woman can carry it. There are ways to make it easier for these women to stay at work longer and return to work quicker, and it doesn't hurt anybody at all. But the sentiment around here seems to be that if a man and a women decide to have a child, its the woman's career that should pay a price, even if its avoidable.

The UN, EU and Irish government have been working on these issues and we're seeing good results. The gender pay gap is dropping, women with children are being facilitated in many companies, with flexi time, part time or work from home arrangements, and men are getting more support such as paternity leave/benefit for taking on caring roles. Numbers of women in STEM are increasing and womens' sports are becoming more mainstream. We're advancing as a society.

Meanwhile the headline on boards is that telling about it is an ideology not suitable for children and that the women in JimmyViks family very rudely earn more than him. Fantastic stuff.

the gender pay gap doesn't exist for childless women and therefore its not a gender pay gap, its a primary carer pay gap.

We don't need to resolve that. You can't be mother of the year or father of the year and still be CEO, you can't do everything. Trying in any way to resolve this is incredibly unfair on those people who dedicate their lives to their career at the expense of having kids / being around as much as they'd like.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the gender pay gap doesn't exist for childless women

Children are definitely a big factor, but I'm gonna need to see this backed up - what's your source?

jrosen

Do women want to get back to work quicker??

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the gender pay gap doesn't exist for childless women and therefore its not a gender pay gap, its a primary carer pay gap.

We don't need to resolve that. You can't be mother of the year or father of the year and still be CEO, you can't do everything. Trying in any way to resolve this is incredibly unfair on those people who dedicate their lives to their career at the expense of having kids / being around as much as they'd like.

Evidence please.

jrosen

jrosen wrote: »

Do women want to get back to work quicker??

I tried to consult with the hive mind but they're all busy working or looking after their kids.

Different women want different things. I'm a woman and I've decided not to have kids at all. I've worked with women who were happy to have three kids in a row and after working with them for 3 years had hardly ever seen them in the office - they were happy to take mat leave, unpaid leave, whatever, because the priority was kids. And there are women who plan for children, or have a happy unexpected pregnancy, but still have ambition for their career.

No ones saying you should expect to have kids and make no compromises in your life, but if we can help people a bit why not?

jrosen

I am totally on board with helping, accommodating and being flexible is something that benefits all staff.

I think "help" is vague. What it means varies depending on who is looking for it. It has to work for both the employee and the employer.

robodonkey

Tell me how wrote: »

Evidence please.

First hit in google: https://www.henrikkleven.com/uploads/3/7/3/1/37310663/kleven-landais-sogaard_nber-w24219_jan2018.pdf , ref Fig 3.

And another:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253983919_Earnings_of_Women_with_and_without_Children

Eric Cartman

true-or-false wrote: »

Children are definitely a big factor, but I'm gonna need to see this backed up - what's your source?

Tell me how wrote: »

Evidence please.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap-childcare-penalty
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html
https://www.henrikkleven.com/uploads/3/7/3/1/37310663/kleven-landais-sogaard_nber-w24219_jan2018.pdf

the only evidence of childless women earning less than men is a brief period in late 20s to mid 30s where many women do not chase promotions etc.. trying for children. But women dedicating themselves to their careers and who have not slowed down to try for children experience no significant difference.

robodonkey

Here's a easy to digest overview of the literature from Vox
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap-childcare-penalty

Eric Cartman

jrosen wrote: »

Do women want to get back to work quicker??

completely anecdotal but I think theres a cultural difference.

Had a discussion about this with a recruiter before. Eastern European women would often only take 6 weeks off, 2 before birth and 4 after and return to work, wanting to come back. Most Irish women will save holiday days, try work more maternity leave into contracts etc and take as absolutely much time as is possible.

In the public service where maternity is generous women taking almost a full year out and coming back a few months pregnant, staying for 30 odd days and off again isn't uncommon.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap-childcare-penalty
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html
https://www.henrikkleven.com/uploads/3/7/3/1/37310663/kleven-landais-sogaard_nber-w24219_jan2018.pdf

the only evidence of childless women earning less than men is a brief period in late 20s to mid 30s where many women do not chase promotions etc.. trying for children. But women dedicating themselves to their careers and who have not slowed down to try for children experience no significant difference.

1 I think that is a gross simplification. There are other types of care requirements than look after children. The EU information suggests that quite often it seems they do not have a free choice but rather the burden of care is somewhat forced upon them.

Even if more women participate in the labour market, the burden of private and care responsibilities, the unpaid work, still rests largely on their backs. Women’s increase in working hours doesn’t automatically lead to more balanced sharing of domestic and caregiving work between women and men. Overall, women work more when combining the amount of time dedicated to unpaid labour (day-to-day, domestic duties, including care), personal activities and leisure time.

Women are increasingly well qualified: more women than men graduate from universities in Europe. However, many women don’t feel as free in their choice of jobs or do not get the same job opportunities as men. This is often due to their responsibilities as a parent or as a carer of family relatives. For the same reason, women are more likely than men to work in part-time jobs.

Notwithstanding the above, the same argument can be made about raising children and the traditional way in which women assummed that role, which, outside of the period of breast feeding, there is no definitive reason why they should have to do so.

2 - Do you think that the 700 women mentioned in this report had had not dedicated themselves to their careers?

The BBC has given pay rises to more than 700 female employees since the start of its equal pay scandal, as the broadcaster looks to draw a line under the issue.

3 - This, coupled with the position above of restricting exposure to different opportunities to kids in school really screams like keeping women tied to the kitchen with a baby at the hip.

4 - If, given that those who largely argue against there being a significant gender pay gap, seem to simultaneously accept that there is a pay gap, but that it is because of child caring, what steps do you suggest should be taken so as to help resolve this or do you think that it is acceptable that women should expect to learn less for the latter 30+ years of their career than their male counterpart because they may have taken 2-3 years off in maternity leave in their late 20's.

growleaves

true-of-false,

While its true that women's sports are more mainstream, they have been illegal for the last year.

Who knows how many women will want to go back to sports if/when they are un-banned (this year? next year?) Clearly, women's sports are in decline along with a lot of other things.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

1 I think that is a gross simplification. There are other types of care requirements than look after children. The EU information suggests that quite often it seems they do not have a free choice but rather the burden of care is somewhat forced upon them.



Notwithstanding the above, the same argument can be made about raising children and the traditional way in which women assummed that role, which, outside of the period of breast feeding, there is no definitive reason why they should have to do so.

2 - Do you think that the 700 women mentioned in this report had had not dedicated themselves to their careers?



3 - This, coupled with the position above of restricting exposure to different opportunities to kids in school really screams like keeping women tied to the kitchen with a baby at the hip.

4 - If, given that those who largely argue against there being a significant gender pay gap, seem to simultaneously accept that there is a pay gap, but that it is because of child caring, what steps do you suggest should be taken so as to help resolve this or do you think that it is acceptable that women should expect to learn less for the latter 30+ years of their career than their male counterpart because they may have taken 2-3 years off in maternity leave in their late 20's.

one organisation in the uk is not the 'gotcha' moment you hoped for.

A childless woman does not experience the 'pay gap' so its a childcare gap not a gender gap, as I explained thats normal and any rectification of such is an affront to women without children.

Silentcorner

growleaves wrote: »

true-of-false,

While its true that women's sports are more mainstream, they have been illegal for the last year.

Who knows how many women will want to go back to sports if/when they are un-banned (this year? next year?) Clearly, women's sports are in decline along with a lot of other things.

The biggest problem with women's sport is that women have no interest in paying to see it...no amount of social engineering can change that...it is subsidized by the men's game and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

one organisation in the uk is not the 'gotcha' moment you hoped for.

A childless woman does not experience the 'pay gap' so its a childcare gap not a gender gap, as I explained thats normal and any rectification of such is an affront to women without children.

So you think all 700 women who got pay increases in the BBC all had lost out as a consequence of having children?

At least you have now accepted there is a gap in income, please consider point 4 of my previous post.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

The biggest problem with women's sport is that women have no interest in paying to see it...no amount of social engineering can change that...it is subsidized by the men's game and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

I'm taking the positives from your post. At least you are acknowledging that it is likely that eventually people will be more interested in attending, watching and supporting womens sports.

It has already happened in tennis, there is progress currently being made in womens cycling. There was no significant womens boxing when Katie Taylor was a child.

And as more and more girls see events and role models when they are young, they will seek to emulate them and one thing feeds in to the next with interest creating funds which facilitates coaching and facilities which improves quality which creates more interest and so on.

And why would anyone argue against this?

arfur

true-or-false wrote: »

You still dont understand the concept of the gender pay gap.

No one is saying you should be able to take a huge career break while staying on the same point in your career track as your peers. It's about trying to accommodate the women that want to stay on their career track, that want to find ways to get back to work quicker, like coming back part time or working from home. Or challenging the gender norms that encourage women to take on all the care work and make men feel like they have to prioritise working over taking on caring responsibilities themselves.

Many couples want a child, but unfortunately only the woman can carry it. There are ways to make it easier for these women to stay at work longer and return to work quicker, and it doesn't hurt anybody at all. But the sentiment around here seems to be that if a man and a women decide to have a child, its the woman's career that should pay a price, even if its avoidable.

The UN, EU and Irish government have been working on these issues and we're seeing good results. The gender pay gap is dropping, women with children are being facilitated in many companies, with flexi time, part time or work from home arrangements, and men are getting more support such as paternity leave/benefit for taking on caring roles. Numbers of women in STEM are increasing and womens' sports are becoming more mainstream. We're advancing as a society.

Meanwhile the headline on boards is that talking about it is an ideology not suitable for children and that the women in JimmyViks family very rudely earn more than him. Fantastic stuff.

Advancing? Birth rates have plummeted since women began going out to work in 1973. Now we're barely above replacement level, and projected to drop below it.

What are we advancing towards? Extinction?

jrosen

I dont think women are adversely affected long term because they took a maternity leave. Its more complex. I think its more to do with the fact that when they return they make different choices and those choices affect them long term. While a woman might return as normal after their first baby usually after baby 2 something has to give. At that stage how many want to reduce their working week? or cant/wont stay late, take on additional work. How many mums are the ones taking leave when he kids are sick? Why is it always mum?

EmmetSpiceland

arfur wrote: »

Advancing? Birth rates have plummeted since women began going out to work in 1973. Now we're barely above replacement level, and projected to drop below it.

What are we advancing towards? Extinction?

So we’re heading for extinction from the birth rate falling due to women working while, also, in imminent danger of over-populating due to high levels of immigration.

Or is one only trotted out for one argument and the other for a separate argument?

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm taking the positives from your post. At least you are acknowledging that it is likely that eventually people will be more interested in attending, watching and supporting womens sports.

It has already happened in tennis, there is progress currently being made in womens cycling. There was no significant womens boxing when Katie Taylor was a child.

And as more and more girls see events and role models when they are young, they will seek to emulate them and one thing feeds in to the next with interest creating funds which facilitates coaching and facilities which improves quality which creates more interest and so on.

And why would anyone argue against this?

Because it is infantile....

Tennis is a great example, for as long as any of us can remember, women's tennis gets just as much airtime as mens, most of us would only watch Wimbledon....in the 4 Major Tournaments that is...outside of the majors the women's tours performs very poorly in viewership, sponsorship and paying customers...this is the free market in operation.

Sonia O'Sullivan was a bona fide National Sporting hero, succeeded in a much more competitive discipline than Katie Taylor, I'm not sure it makes any difference, Sonia was a true success story, Katie has a whiff of hype about her.

When it comes to team sports, like GAA, Rugby and Football, they will always be subsidized by the mens game....that is never going to change....and we will can only listen to how much misogyny is in the game for so long despite the completely disproportionate coverage women's games get, young girls will just have to accept what the vast majority of young boys learn at a very young age...no one wants to see (let alone pay) you play if you aren't good enough!

...Ghost...

true-or-false wrote: »

You still dont understand the concept of the gender pay gap.

I get the concept. Argument = Women earn less than men.
Truth = It is illegal to pay less by gender and pay level depends on many factors which gender pay gap campaigners ignore, because the facts don't back up their arguments.

No one is saying you should be able to take a huge career break while staying on the same point in your career track as your peers. It's about trying to accommodate the women that want to stay on their career track, that want to find ways to get back to work quicker, like coming back part time or working from home. Or challenging the gender norms that encourage women to take on all the care work and make men feel like they have to prioritise working over taking on caring responsibilities themselves.

I doubt nobody is saying this as child care is the basis of the argument often used as a discriminatory factor against women. I'm not aware of any norms which "encourage" women to take on all the care work and that statement is inherently false. I don't know any men who did not contribute to the care of their children, particularly in the early days. In my case, the ironing was neglected, but then I don't mind a few fashionable creases

Many couples want a child, but unfortunately only the woman can carry it. There are ways to make it easier for these women to stay at work longer and return to work quicker, and it doesn't hurt anybody at all. But the sentiment around here seems to be that if a man and a women decide to have a child, its the woman's career that should pay a price, even if its avoidable.

The UN, EU and Irish government have been working on these issues and we're seeing good results. The gender pay gap is dropping, women with children are being facilitated in many companies, with flexi time, part time or work from home arrangements, and men are getting more support such as paternity leave/benefit for taking on caring roles. Numbers of women in STEM are increasing and womens' sports are becoming more mainstream. We're advancing as a society.

When maternity and paternity leave are equal, that will be a good thing. It would have made life easier for me if I had the same benefits.

The gender pay gap is not dropping. It doesn't exist. What exists are reasons why earnings for people in similar roles may be different including, but not limited to time served, or overtime. A nice trick these gender pay gap campaigners like to play is to annualise pay for genders, or worse again....calculate total average earnings in companies by gender.

I don't see the importance of getting more women into STEM. What IS important is that they have the same choice to get into STEM. I support equality of opportunity and to allow the outcome be a matter of choice, not social construction.

I'm not into sport at all, so I don't care for either gender. However, I think the argument for the gender pay gap in sport is beyond ridiculous. The simple fact is that the vast majority of revenue in sports is generated by the men who play sports. I won't get into training regimens, but suffice to say, they spend a lot more time training in the majority of cases. The reverse of this is fashion modelling. Women are paid many multiples of what men are paid. Should this be tackled, or should we let the market decide?

Meanwhile the headline on boards is that talking about it is an ideology not suitable for children and that the women in JimmyViks family very rudely earn more than him. Fantastic stuff.

Are poster not allowed to share their experience?

arfur

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

So we’re heading for extinction from the birth rate falling due to women working while, also, in imminent danger of over-populating due to high levels of immigration.

Or is one only trotted out for one argument and the other for a separate argument?

Wha? I said nothing about over-population or immigration. That's the worst strawman ever.

Tell me how

...Ghost... wrote: »

I get the concept. Argument = Women earn less than men.
Truth = It is illegal to pay less by gender and pay level depends on many factors which gender pay gap campaigners ignore, because the facts don't back up their arguments.



I doubt nobody is saying this as child care is the basis of the argument often used as a discriminatory factor against women. I'm not aware of any norms which "encourage" women to take on all the care work and that statement is inherently false. I don't know any men who did not contribute to the care of their children, particularly in the early days. In my case, the ironing was neglected, but then I don't mind a few fashionable creases





When maternity and paternity leave are equal, that will be a good thing. It would have made life easier for me if I had the same benefits.

The gender pay gap is not dropping. It doesn't exist. What exists are reasons why earnings for people in similar roles may be different including, but not limited to time served, or overtime. A nice trick these gender pay gap campaigners like to play is to annualise pay for genders, or worse again....calculate total average earnings in companies by gender.

I don't see the importance of getting more women into STEM. What IS important is that they have the same choice to get into STEM. I support equality of opportunity and to allow the outcome be a matter of choice, not social construction.

I'm not into sport at all, so I don't care for either gender. However, I think the argument for the gender pay gap in sport is beyond ridiculous. The simple fact is that the vast majority of revenue in sports is generated by the men who play sports. I won't get into training regimens, but suffice to say, they spend a lot more time training in the majority of cases. The reverse of this is fashion modelling. Women are paid many multiples of what men are paid. Should this be tackled, or should we let the market decide?



Are poster not allowed to share their experience?

Not for the first time, people are saying within a single post something doesn't exist but then give some form of an explanation as to why it does.

If this works out as men typically earning a greater percentage, this must mean that women are either not working as hard, or have to do other things than work which they aren't paid for.

Which do you think it is?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Not for the first time, people are saying within a single post something doesn't exist but then give some form of an explanation as to why it does.

Exactly! I can't believe this far into the thread there's still people that clearly have no understanding of the terminology. That 'gender pay gap' means a very specific thing. And yes, it is tied to women's choices and whether women have children, and yes, that still matters!!

Even if you want women to put up and shut up, and you don't think it warrants solutions, it's absolutely, definitely, and measurably a thing.

So - evidence it does exist:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/minister-to-move-on-gender-pay-gap-legislation-in-next-fortnight-1.4504678
http://www.genderequality.ie/en/GE/Pages/GenderPayGap
https://www.pwc.ie/services/human-resource-services/insights/gender-pay-gap-reporting-in-ireland.html
https://www.pwc.ie/media-centre/press-release/2020/it-pays-to-pay-women-the-same.html
https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/careers/policies/gender-pay-gap-report-2020.pdf
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/1109/1177032-gender-pay-gap/
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200227STO73519/gender-pay-gap-in-europe-facts-and-figures-infographic
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equal-pay/gender-pay-gap-situation-eu_en

growleaves

true-or-false wrote: »

Even if you want women to put up and shut up, and you don't think it warrants solutions, it's absolutely, definitely, and measurably a thing.

What solution would even be possible apart from treating all places of employment as systems of patronage and all employers money as public money?

The only other thing that could be done would be to bar men from working so many hours.

And why does it matter anyway. Is having a womb a political problem that must be overcome?

the_pen_turner

true-or-false wrote: »

Exactly! I can't believe this far into the thread there's still people that clearly have no understanding of the terminology. That 'gender pay gap' means a very specific thing. And yes, it is tied to women's choices and whether women have children, and yes, that still matters!!

Even if you want women to put up and shut up, and you don't think it warrants solutions, it's absolutely, definitely, and measurably a thing.

So - evidence it does exist:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/minister-to-move-on-gender-pay-gap-legislation-in-next-fortnight-1.4504678
http://www.genderequality.ie/en/GE/Pages/GenderPayGap
https://www.pwc.ie/services/human-resource-services/insights/gender-pay-gap-reporting-in-ireland.html
https://www.pwc.ie/media-centre/press-release/2020/it-pays-to-pay-women-the-same.html
https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/careers/policies/gender-pay-gap-report-2020.pdf
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/1109/1177032-gender-pay-gap/
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200227STO73519/gender-pay-gap-in-europe-facts-and-figures-infographic
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equal-pay/gender-pay-gap-situation-eu_en

the problem is that there are 2 difering versions of pay gap
first is like you an average mens yearly wage versus an average womens wage. that shows on average mens yearly wages are higher than that of womens. i dont think anyone would deny that. thats perfectly true. there are lots of reasons for that , some we can help with and some we cant or shouldnt.

the second pay gap is the one that is talked about in the media and spun out any time anyone talks about this sort of stuff. its that women are paid less than men for the same work , . this is clearly a lie and made up. its been proven false repeatedly.

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the problem is that there are 2 difering versions of pay gap
first is like you an average mens yearly wage versus an average womens wage. that shows on average mens yearly wages are higher than that of womens. i dont think anyone would deny that. thats perfectly true. there are lots of reasons for that , some we can help with and some we cant or shouldnt.

the second pay gap is the one that is talked about in the media and spun out any time anyone talks about this sort of stuff. its that women are paid less than men for the same work , . this is clearly a lie and made up. its been proven false repeatedly.

When someone says 'gender pay gap', they mean the first explanation you've provided. That's what the terminology means.

You can mistake it for the second, by all means, by not being bothered to google it.

Tell me how

growleaves wrote: »

What solution would even be possible apart from treating all places of employment as systems of patronage and all employers money as public money?

The only other thing that could be done would be to bar men from working so many hours.

And why does it matter anyway. Is having a womb a political problem that must be overcome?

This is definitely something you haven't thought of, I'm quite sure of that.

But how about men look to facilitate womens careers advancing in any way they can help. If that means helping out with caring and other duties at home, if it means ensuring they get opportunities in the workplace or assisting with their transition back to work or continued involvement in work while they take some time to provide care.

Now, I expect a reaction of outrage here where some will say there is absolutely no way that they should have to accommodate women in this way, but, is it not true to say that quite often many women are accommodating men in taking on care duties to the detriment of their career.

And if you don't want to do it for Theresa (the lazy so and so) or whoever, it's about contributing to an environment where a female you care about could ultimately benefit.

I must point out, that I feel that a large number of men are already on board with this type of stuff and there has been progress made in this respect but it seems like a completely alien concept to many on this thread.

jrosen

Facilitate in what way?

From a personal stand point I would expect any partner to share in the responsibility of being a parent and all that entails. Sick days/flex days/pick up and drop off of kids from childcare.

Within the work place there is usually already processes in place when people return to work from any leave.

true-or-false

true-or-false wrote: »

Exactly! I can't believe this far into the thread there's still people that clearly have no understanding of the terminology. That 'gender pay gap' means a very specific thing. And yes, it is tied to women's choices and whether women have children, and yes, that still matters!!

The term "gender wage gap" is designed to be divisive and misleading. That the media loves to run with it, doesn't change the fact that it mostly comes down to life and career choices, rather than, factors based on the persons gender.

I likely earn less (from my job) that most people here, but I also work less hours than most people. I chose that compromise so that I could focus my efforts on other areas of my life.

It's a matter of choices made, and what you value. If you want to make the big bucks, then you pick an industry that pays well, you put in the long hours, and you compete with others within that competitive space for those desired positions.

Even if you want women to put up and shut up, and you don't think it warrants solutions, it's absolutely, definitely, and measurably a thing.

I don't think anyone is saying for "women" to shut up about it. I suspect most people would like the media to stop promoting the concept as it stands, since what they're promoting is extremely skewed.

There are some areas within society and employment where discrimination for both genders exist, with a definite loss of income and career success, as a result.. but it's not as widespread as those who push the "gender wage gap" would like to claim. We have laws in place to protect the rights of most workers, and depending on your educational/skills, you have the ability to move elsewhere, seeking better opportunities. However, if you want to work in a low paid job, with low hours, and irregular schedules, then you're going to pay for that.