4 ms·

1. When it becomes a systemic problem, i.e. women earn a significantly lower amount based on their job choices, there is an issue. The narrative of the pay-gap

1. When it becomes a systemic problem, i.e. women earn a significantly lower amount based on their job choices, there is an issue. The narrative of the pay-gap has largely been framed around pay for the same job, when in reality the consideration we should be making is pay-gap based on profession. The reason being that it exposes a flaw in the way that our society is socializing young women. The idea that we have that women go into non-profits at an absurdly high rate because they have some inherent biological difference just doesn't make sense based on the neuroscience research that we have today. A huge proportional difference in any field that does not have a physical limitation (i.e. if women were 1% of lumberjacks I would not see that as a problem) is worrisome. The large proportion of women in nursing is emblematic of a problem -- it's a field with ridiculously long hours, high rates of injury, and entirely focused around caregiving. While a higher number of available candidates in a field will decrease our salaries, is that a valid reason to keep women out of high-paying fields? You could say the same for any other engineering profession. I agree that the wwcode claims are nebulous. I don't doubt that women who make more invest more in their communities, I do doubt that it's 90%, but in a way I feel like this is also part of the problem, and I would be saddened if women invested 90% of their income in their communities. It would mean that the problems I'm talking about above are not solved, and are rather being financially and socially perpetuated. Meh

HarshTruth 10y ago
Women earn lower because they choose to earn lower. Men face more pressure to earn a higher income than women, so naturally men dominate the high income fields. Then, once married, it makes more sense (economically) for the lower earning partner (the woman) to become the primary parent further widening the pay gap. Want to fix it? Tell women to instead (statistically, as a group) start marrying down in income. Then men will face less pressure to earn a high income (and be able to, like women now, marry up for economic security), so will have more freedom to choose, and pay gaps will equalize. The reason women go into non-profits is that it doesn't significantly effect their sexual selection. A man who does so would be significantly limiting his sexual opportunities. You don't need neuroscience to explain it. Men face every economic pressure that women do AND a sexual pressure. So naturally men earn more. I would also be hesitant to try and fix it because the entire human endeavor is built around the male's desire for high status, which is fundamentally sexually motivated. Fix it and humanity stagnates.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tomp 10y ago
> When it becomes a systemic problem, i.e. women earn a significantly lower amount based on their job choices, there is an issue. I disagree. E.g. in the Netherlands, many women (mothers) choose to work part-time (4 hours) to be able to spend more time at home (presumably with their kids). I think it's great that the governments supports this choice, more governments should follow! (You could use the same argument for other job choices; maybe more women choose to be e.g. teachers despite the lower salary, because they enjoy working with kids!) Sure, they earn (much) less, but in exchange they have a higher quality of life, so I see it as a perfectly valid choice/tradeoff.

HarshTruth 10y ago

Women earn lower because they choose to earn lower. Men face more pressure to earn a higher income than women, so naturally men dominate the high income fields. Then, once married, it makes more sense (economically) for the lower earning partner (the woman) to become the primary parent further widening the pay gap. Want to fix it? Tell women to instead (statistically, as a group) start marrying down in income. Then men will face less pressure to earn a high income (and be able to, like women now, marry up for economic security), so will have more freedom to choose, and pay gaps will equalize. The reason women go into non-profits is that it doesn't significantly effect their sexual selection. A man who does so would be significantly limiting his sexual opportunities. You don't need neuroscience to explain it. Men face every economic pressure that women do AND a sexual pressure. So naturally men earn more. I would also be hesitant to try and fix it because the entire human endeavor is built around the male's desire for high status, which is fundamentally sexually motivated. Fix it and humanity stagnates.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tomp 10y ago

> When it becomes a systemic problem, i.e. women earn a significantly lower amount based on their job choices, there is an issue. I disagree. E.g. in the Netherlands, many women (mothers) choose to work part-time (4 hours) to be able to spend more time at home (presumably with their kids). I think it's great that the governments supports this choice, more governments should follow! (You could use the same argument for other job choices; maybe more women choose to be e.g. teachers despite the lower salary, because they enjoy working with kids!) Sure, they earn (much) less, but in exchange they have a higher quality of life, so I see it as a perfectly valid choice/tradeoff.