4 ms·

Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot -- if we search fruitlessly for robust evidence of discrimination, why assume anything is wrong? Assume for a moment that

Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot -- if we search fruitlessly for robust evidence of discrimination, why assume anything is wrong? Assume for a moment that we investigate and find that people do indeed have the same opportunities and the environment is equally welcoming. Would that be it, case closed?

cuchoi 9y ago
Maybe, yes. But we don't have to even ask ourselves that. I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence and non-anecdotal evidence to argue that men and women don't have the same opportunities.
- spronkey 9y ago
  Well, there's plenty of evidence that the opportunities aren't the same. But that doesn't say whether they are equal in value.
1auralynn 9y ago
Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far. For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted.
- throwaway92224 9y ago
  Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far. This is not the smoking gun it appears to be. Men also encounter male coworkers with the same job, who do worse work and make more money than them. For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted. But what do we do when the research suggests that discrimination is not a major driver of macro-trends in men's and women's career outcomes? (Any research that showed there was no discrimination would of course be suspect, because there are legitimate discrimination cases prosecuted each and every year.)
  - 1auralynn 9y ago
    Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimation, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted. You can argue with my off-the-cuff example, but as you mentioned there are many documented cases of discrimination that are hard to argue with. The 2-6% difference in wages (depending on which study you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...) can still be very significant. And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs.
    - throwaway92224 9y ago
      Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimination, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted. The research is warranted, but seems not to support the idea that discrimination is a major driver in the difference in career outcomes or lifetime earnings. And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs. Why should we do that?

cuchoi 9y ago

Maybe, yes. But we don't have to even ask ourselves that. I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence and non-anecdotal evidence to argue that men and women don't have the same opportunities.

spronkey 9y ago
Well, there's plenty of evidence that the opportunities aren't the same. But that doesn't say whether they are equal in value.

1auralynn 9y ago

Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far. For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted.

throwaway92224 9y ago
Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far. This is not the smoking gun it appears to be. Men also encounter male coworkers with the same job, who do worse work and make more money than them. For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted. But what do we do when the research suggests that discrimination is not a major driver of macro-trends in men's and women's career outcomes? (Any research that showed there was no discrimination would of course be suspect, because there are legitimate discrimination cases prosecuted each and every year.)
- 1auralynn 9y ago
  Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimation, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted. You can argue with my off-the-cuff example, but as you mentioned there are many documented cases of discrimination that are hard to argue with. The 2-6% difference in wages (depending on which study you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...) can still be very significant. And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs.
  - throwaway92224 9y ago
    Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimination, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted. The research is warranted, but seems not to support the idea that discrimination is a major driver in the difference in career outcomes or lifetime earnings. And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs. Why should we do that?