7 ms·

>It doesn't account for differences in industry, job title, experience, etc. It's super broad. It also doesn't account for full time covering a wide number of

>It doesn't account for differences in industry, job title, experience, etc. It's super broad. It also doesn't account for full time covering a wide number of hours worked. Full time can be 37 hours a week or 45 hours a week, can comparing them as both just being 'full time' misses quite a lot. >This is in large part because care for family members(children and elderly parents usually) is more often foisted upon women in our society than on men. How it is more often foisted upon women? The social pressure on men to take deadly jobs and to work longer hours is equal to the social pressure on women to choose careers where they can take time off and be with their kids. If anything, I rather be with my kid than stuck an extra 20 hours in the office... one of these pressures is for something most people find more desirable than the other. >We need to de-stigmatize flexible schedules. So are we aiming for more men to take flexible schedules or for pay to not suffer when someone takes flexible schedules? Because if you want the former, it is more about the pressure to earn than the stigma on flexible work schedules. And if it is the latter, how is this fair to the people who don't get the flexible work schedules? I think the deeper problem is why are women forced in the child care role and men into the bread winning roles and how to fix that (which you do mention).

RodericDay 11y ago
Elsewhere, on a different topic, you posted something along the same lines: > Which gender gets killed most often at work because of a social pressure that your value is determined by having a job, so if the only job options are dangerous, you best take one anyways? Do you like gender roles or not? You've already posted like 5 times in this thread, and I'm not sure if your perspective is "let's do away with gender roles" or "gender roles are there for a reason, and it benefits women".
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  The very last line of the post you just responded to. >I think the deeper problem is why are women forced in the child care role and men into the bread winning roles and how to fix that (which you do mention). I would hope that makes my position on the matter clear enough. But in case it doesn't. Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination. But gender roles are still a problem, especially for the people who are forced into the roles they do not like. But... even if I made posts that completely contradict everything I said (and I do that sometimes when trying out arguments for sides I don't normally support), that does not invalidate anything in the current posts.
  - dalke 11y ago
    > Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination How was Lilly Ledbetter's wage disparity caused by something other than discrimination on the basis of sex? Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter : "Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236."
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Single past data point does not make a modern day trend.
      - dalke 11y ago
        I'm glad you've clarified that statement "Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination" is incomplete, and that you accept that historical wage disparity included discrimination on the basis of sex. However, your response is less than complete. What is "modern day"? For example, "DU Law School is violating Equal Pay Act"/"The University of Denver is violating federal law by paying female law professors less than their male counterparts, according to the [EEOC]" (2015) - http://legacy.9news.com/story/news/education/2015/08/31/equal-pay-act-du-violation-eeoc/71493818/ http://legacy.9news.com/story/news/education/2015/08/31/equa... Why is "trend" relevant? Your clarified statement is that modern wage disparity is not due to discrimination. That means that even a handful of counter-examples would suffice to show that that statement is incorrect. Adding the term "trend" feels very much like you are moving the goalposts.
        fche 11y ago
        The EEOC only indicated _disparity_, and because it's a governmental political bully, it got to turn that into an accusation of discrimination. Logic not necessary.
- MudAndGears 11y ago
  He's a frequent poster on r/mensrights, so that may be a clue. https://www.reddit.com/user/Lawtonfogle/ https://www.reddit.com/user/Lawtonfogle/
SamBam 11y ago
> > This is in large part because care for family members(children and elderly parents usually) is more often foisted upon women in our society than on men. > How it is more often foisted upon women? The social pressure on men to take deadly jobs and to work longer hours is equal to the social pressure on women to choose careers where they can take time off and be with their kids. So... you're saying the exact same thing. There is a social pressure for the women to be in careers where they are caring for kids, and for men not to be. So what did you take issue with in the statement above? Just the word "foist," maybe?
- akavi 11y ago
  The framing does make a difference, as it sets the perception of which gender is being "wronged". I think the GP is arguing that one could replace "care for family members... is more often foisted upon women" with "the burden of providing financially... is more often foisted upon men", and thereby shift the focus from injustice against women to injustice against men, while being an equally valid interpretation of the objective facts.
  - ahoy 11y ago
    I chose my language specifically. Single women are more often family caregivers than are single men.
    - homonculus1 11y ago
      Does that support the narrative that caregiving is shunted onto women against their will/without their say? For instance, family courts have a reputation for favoring women when awarding child custody. In light of this, your statistic could equally be interpreted as men getting shafted out of parenthood rather than women getting stuck with responsibilities they never asked for. Even aside from all that, how are you accounting for personal choices? Is it implausible that women find it more rewarding to care for family members than men do? There are a lot of alternate hypotheses you have to eliminate before you can claim that trends like this are the result of injustice.
  - deleted 11y ago
ra1n85 11y ago
Or 80 hours per week. In the tech industry in particular, I would be interested in what this looks like.
vacri 11y ago
> I rather be with my kid than stuck an extra 20 hours in the office Yeah, sure, it's the typical story for men, working an extra four hours in the office every day. It's so typical, no-one expects otherwise, and it's notable when the opposite happens.
msabalau 11y ago
> How it is more often foisted upon women? According to the 2015 Report Caregiving in the US, 60% of caregivers are women, and half of caregivers report having no choice in undertaking caregiving.

RodericDay 11y ago

Elsewhere, on a different topic, you posted something along the same lines: > Which gender gets killed most often at work because of a social pressure that your value is determined by having a job, so if the only job options are dangerous, you best take one anyways? Do you like gender roles or not? You've already posted like 5 times in this thread, and I'm not sure if your perspective is "let's do away with gender roles" or "gender roles are there for a reason, and it benefits women".

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
The very last line of the post you just responded to. >I think the deeper problem is why are women forced in the child care role and men into the bread winning roles and how to fix that (which you do mention). I would hope that makes my position on the matter clear enough. But in case it doesn't. Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination. But gender roles are still a problem, especially for the people who are forced into the roles they do not like. But... even if I made posts that completely contradict everything I said (and I do that sometimes when trying out arguments for sides I don't normally support), that does not invalidate anything in the current posts.
- dalke 11y ago
  > Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination How was Lilly Ledbetter's wage disparity caused by something other than discrimination on the basis of sex? Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter : "Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236."
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Single past data point does not make a modern day trend.
    - dalke 11y ago
      I'm glad you've clarified that statement "Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination" is incomplete, and that you accept that historical wage disparity included discrimination on the basis of sex. However, your response is less than complete. What is "modern day"? For example, "DU Law School is violating Equal Pay Act"/"The University of Denver is violating federal law by paying female law professors less than their male counterparts, according to the [EEOC]" (2015) - http://legacy.9news.com/story/news/education/2015/08/31/equal-pay-act-du-violation-eeoc/71493818/ http://legacy.9news.com/story/news/education/2015/08/31/equa... Why is "trend" relevant? Your clarified statement is that modern wage disparity is not due to discrimination. That means that even a handful of counter-examples would suffice to show that that statement is incorrect. Adding the term "trend" feels very much like you are moving the goalposts.
      - fche 11y ago
        The EEOC only indicated _disparity_, and because it's a governmental political bully, it got to turn that into an accusation of discrimination. Logic not necessary.
MudAndGears 11y ago
He's a frequent poster on r/mensrights, so that may be a clue. https://www.reddit.com/user/Lawtonfogle/ https://www.reddit.com/user/Lawtonfogle/

SamBam 11y ago

> > This is in large part because care for family members(children and elderly parents usually) is more often foisted upon women in our society than on men. > How it is more often foisted upon women? The social pressure on men to take deadly jobs and to work longer hours is equal to the social pressure on women to choose careers where they can take time off and be with their kids. So... you're saying the exact same thing. There is a social pressure for the women to be in careers where they are caring for kids, and for men not to be. So what did you take issue with in the statement above? Just the word "foist," maybe?

akavi 11y ago
The framing does make a difference, as it sets the perception of which gender is being "wronged". I think the GP is arguing that one could replace "care for family members... is more often foisted upon women" with "the burden of providing financially... is more often foisted upon men", and thereby shift the focus from injustice against women to injustice against men, while being an equally valid interpretation of the objective facts.
- ahoy 11y ago
  I chose my language specifically. Single women are more often family caregivers than are single men.
  - homonculus1 11y ago
    Does that support the narrative that caregiving is shunted onto women against their will/without their say? For instance, family courts have a reputation for favoring women when awarding child custody. In light of this, your statistic could equally be interpreted as men getting shafted out of parenthood rather than women getting stuck with responsibilities they never asked for. Even aside from all that, how are you accounting for personal choices? Is it implausible that women find it more rewarding to care for family members than men do? There are a lot of alternate hypotheses you have to eliminate before you can claim that trends like this are the result of injustice.
- deleted 11y ago

ra1n85 11y ago

Or 80 hours per week. In the tech industry in particular, I would be interested in what this looks like.

vacri 11y ago

> I rather be with my kid than stuck an extra 20 hours in the office Yeah, sure, it's the typical story for men, working an extra four hours in the office every day. It's so typical, no-one expects otherwise, and it's notable when the opposite happens.

msabalau 11y ago

> How it is more often foisted upon women? According to the 2015 Report Caregiving in the US, 60% of caregivers are women, and half of caregivers report having no choice in undertaking caregiving.