3 ms·

> Because it is inherently unjust to discriminate against people because of characteristics that have no bearing on the job, such as their race and their gender

by mantas 10y ago

> Because it is inherently unjust to discriminate against people because of characteristics that have no bearing on the job, such as their race and their gender. If you don't accept this premise I don't think we can have a productive discussion because it's the basic principle I'm basing my argument on. Is it ok to discriminate based on one's personal characteristics? I'm pretty sure woman who is technically good as well as good negotiator gets equal salary as man with same abilities. Women (and men) who are bad negotiators are discriminated because of their personal characteristics, not because of their gender. Or are you saying that certain skills should not be valued in job market, because they're less prevalent in one of the genders' iconic image?

emodendroket 10y ago
On what basis are you "pretty sure" of that? http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/woman-negotiation-success/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/woman-negotiation-success/ If you want to reply to a comment further downthread you can click on the timestamp. I do not know why it works that way but replying to a common parent is confusing.
- mantas 10y ago
  That article just says women negotiate less/worse. I'm saying good negotiator will get paid regardless of gender. Wether women can negotiate as good as men is another question. But as I said in another comment, this is skill issue, not gender issue. Wage gap studies that have controls throughout the board show there's no significant pay difference. My anecdata confirms that.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    We can cross "negotiate less" off the list, since the article controls for that and finds women who do negotiate are less successful. It is possible that women are three times worse negotiators across the board but it strikes me as far more likely that the well documented tendency of assertive women to be perceived as "shrill" or "bossy" is a significant factor.

by mantas 10y ago

emodendroket 10y ago

On what basis are you "pretty sure" of that? http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/woman-negotiation-success/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/woman-negotiation-success/ If you want to reply to a comment further downthread you can click on the timestamp. I do not know why it works that way but replying to a common parent is confusing.

mantas 10y ago
That article just says women negotiate less/worse. I'm saying good negotiator will get paid regardless of gender. Wether women can negotiate as good as men is another question. But as I said in another comment, this is skill issue, not gender issue. Wage gap studies that have controls throughout the board show there's no significant pay difference. My anecdata confirms that.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  We can cross "negotiate less" off the list, since the article controls for that and finds women who do negotiate are less successful. It is possible that women are three times worse negotiators across the board but it strikes me as far more likely that the well documented tendency of assertive women to be perceived as "shrill" or "bossy" is a significant factor.