4 ms·

The coverage on this subject is more and more made to follow a feminist/sexist narrative that wants to prove that the world is patriarchal and against womens.

The coverage on this subject is more and more made to follow a feminist/sexist narrative that wants to prove that the world is patriarchal and against womens. the common saying "0.70$ for every 1.00$ of a man" is when you average all the women salaries against all the man salaries. It doesn't take into account specific individuals or interests. I believe the main issue here is that womens are on average more interested in having a better quality of life (as shown with overtime in this paper), and are also less pushy during salary negotiations.

abalone 8y ago
The paper directly contradicts your beliefs about “womens”: > These gender differences are consistent with women taking on more of the household and childcare duties than men, limiting their work availability in the process (Parker et al., 2015; Bertrand et al., 2015).
- warp_factor 8y ago
  how does that contradict any of my "beliefs" ? The workplace is not the one restricting the women to work more hours. It seems to be based on a choice and preference.
  - abalone 8y ago
    You didn’t limit it to the workplace. You said the pay gap is due to “interests” not a “patriarchal world against womens.” The study specifically mentions patriarchal gender roles as a primary factor behind those interests.
    - warp_factor 8y ago
      The gender roles as you describe them result from an individual choice from every man/women involved. Nobody forces a person today in the system to follow those gender roles. What I see in my circle of friends is that in most couples with kids, it is a conscious choice for the women to spend more time at home (and give up extra hour?) and for the man to spend more time at work. This is indeed a stereotype but there is nobody forcing anyone to follow those gender roles. We all know successful women/men going against those gender roles. If you take a conscious decision to work less hours to spend more time at home, you cannot be mad at "society" for patriarchism etc.
chowells 8y ago
Well, yes, those first couple paragraphs are the data. Everyone, even those who disagree with you, are aware of that. But people who disagree with you have considered other things, too. One such thing is the question of whether income is genetically determined. Well, there are 3 characteristics (aside from the direct sexual characteristics of genitals, mammaries, and presence/absence of a womb) that are associated with sex sufficiently well that describing them is a strong predictor of sex. Those are vocal register, height, and physical strength. 2/3rds of those factors make it awfully unlikely women will be playing in the NBA and getting those salaries. But the number of jobs where those characteristics are strong predictors of performance is vanishingly small. So why are women making less money at the median? Women aren't genetically predisposed to desiring a better quality of life. If that's a real factor, there has to be a non-genetic reason underlying it. And that's what people are looking for. You can't just dismiss that as feminism. As if there's something wrong with that? Precisely what are you coding in your assertion that something is just because of feminism? That it's worth less? That it's not important? If not those, why bring it up at all?
BadassFractal 8y ago
Disclaimer: Armchair backseat keyboard-jockey evolutionary biologist here. I wonder if a big part of this difference is that for men, making more money directly translates to better mating opportunities, which is a primary driver for humans. Thus climbing the male hierarchy is something many men will do at all costs, because they're programmed to associate that with much greater power and reproductive success (the, maybe unproven, theory that the top x% males get exponentially more mating opportunities than the rest). So for males, working themselves to the bone beyond a lifestyle that's "comfortable enough" still has significant evolutionary ROI (notice how many powerful and wealthy men also happen to be huge playboys, regardless of how clean and wholesome their media image often begins as), while the returns diminish noticeably for women. Whereas for women, once a baseline of comfort is reached, let's say "I can afford live at a decent place, I can do my hobbies, travel occasionally, I can generally take care of myself" then the additional income doesn't make that much of a difference, at least not until you have a family and suddenly you have to make enough to afford the extra medical, babysitters, daycare, good schools, tutors, college etc.
sigi45 8y ago
Just imagine you work 40h per week and get money $ and it doesn't depend on how hard you push at salary negotiations or what gender you have or if you can make children or how willing you are to do overtime or work on skewed work hours. That doesn't only help woman, that helps everyone.
- pluto9 8y ago
  > That doesn't only help woman, that helps everyone. No, it doesn't help anyone. What if I have a financial emergency and am willing to work overtime for the next month for some extra cash? How exactly am I "helped" by not having the option to do that?
  - sigi45 8y ago
    That is not what i'm saying. But your motivation to spend that extra time in the company should NOT influence any salary negotiation. Otherwise it brings pressure on all others while redefining what the 'social avg norm' is.

abalone 8y ago

The paper directly contradicts your beliefs about “womens”: > These gender differences are consistent with women taking on more of the household and childcare duties than men, limiting their work availability in the process (Parker et al., 2015; Bertrand et al., 2015).

warp_factor 8y ago
how does that contradict any of my "beliefs" ? The workplace is not the one restricting the women to work more hours. It seems to be based on a choice and preference.
- abalone 8y ago
  You didn’t limit it to the workplace. You said the pay gap is due to “interests” not a “patriarchal world against womens.” The study specifically mentions patriarchal gender roles as a primary factor behind those interests.
  - warp_factor 8y ago
    The gender roles as you describe them result from an individual choice from every man/women involved. Nobody forces a person today in the system to follow those gender roles. What I see in my circle of friends is that in most couples with kids, it is a conscious choice for the women to spend more time at home (and give up extra hour?) and for the man to spend more time at work. This is indeed a stereotype but there is nobody forcing anyone to follow those gender roles. We all know successful women/men going against those gender roles. If you take a conscious decision to work less hours to spend more time at home, you cannot be mad at "society" for patriarchism etc.

chowells 8y ago

Well, yes, those first couple paragraphs are the data. Everyone, even those who disagree with you, are aware of that. But people who disagree with you have considered other things, too. One such thing is the question of whether income is genetically determined. Well, there are 3 characteristics (aside from the direct sexual characteristics of genitals, mammaries, and presence/absence of a womb) that are associated with sex sufficiently well that describing them is a strong predictor of sex. Those are vocal register, height, and physical strength. 2/3rds of those factors make it awfully unlikely women will be playing in the NBA and getting those salaries. But the number of jobs where those characteristics are strong predictors of performance is vanishingly small. So why are women making less money at the median? Women aren't genetically predisposed to desiring a better quality of life. If that's a real factor, there has to be a non-genetic reason underlying it. And that's what people are looking for. You can't just dismiss that as feminism. As if there's something wrong with that? Precisely what are you coding in your assertion that something is just because of feminism? That it's worth less? That it's not important? If not those, why bring it up at all?

BadassFractal 8y ago

Disclaimer: Armchair backseat keyboard-jockey evolutionary biologist here. I wonder if a big part of this difference is that for men, making more money directly translates to better mating opportunities, which is a primary driver for humans. Thus climbing the male hierarchy is something many men will do at all costs, because they're programmed to associate that with much greater power and reproductive success (the, maybe unproven, theory that the top x% males get exponentially more mating opportunities than the rest). So for males, working themselves to the bone beyond a lifestyle that's "comfortable enough" still has significant evolutionary ROI (notice how many powerful and wealthy men also happen to be huge playboys, regardless of how clean and wholesome their media image often begins as), while the returns diminish noticeably for women. Whereas for women, once a baseline of comfort is reached, let's say "I can afford live at a decent place, I can do my hobbies, travel occasionally, I can generally take care of myself" then the additional income doesn't make that much of a difference, at least not until you have a family and suddenly you have to make enough to afford the extra medical, babysitters, daycare, good schools, tutors, college etc.

sigi45 8y ago

Just imagine you work 40h per week and get money $ and it doesn't depend on how hard you push at salary negotiations or what gender you have or if you can make children or how willing you are to do overtime or work on skewed work hours. That doesn't only help woman, that helps everyone.

pluto9 8y ago
> That doesn't only help woman, that helps everyone. No, it doesn't help anyone. What if I have a financial emergency and am willing to work overtime for the next month for some extra cash? How exactly am I "helped" by not having the option to do that?
- sigi45 8y ago
  That is not what i'm saying. But your motivation to spend that extra time in the company should NOT influence any salary negotiation. Otherwise it brings pressure on all others while redefining what the 'social avg norm' is.