8 ms·

Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument:

Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument: >the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. only comes down to just being a moving the goal posts sort of thing from disparity in pay to disparity in expectation and opportunity for young men versus women. It's not a compelling argument against a gender pay gap, overall. Using your own metric of a broad view, it's probably more of a problem than a specific man versus a specific woman, because it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. Anyway, any workplace that wouldn't let you have a conversation about this topic, in a respectful, non-bigoted way is maybe not a healthy place to work. The problem is, these types of arguments are (in my experience as a professional) a thin veneer of 'civility' over a massive ocean of bigotry and idiocy in many cases. I'm afraid employers take a hard line, because it's easy to slip into that ocean.

nostromo 6y ago
> it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.
- Loughla 6y ago
  Obviously that is the case. It would be startling if adults chose careers in exactly even proportions, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, or whatever. BUT, based on human developmental theory and how people make decisions, no choice is truly random. Therefore, there must be a reason for those choices. Your theory offers no explanation other than random chance, from what I can tell. Identifying inputs and outcomes is sort of the point of solving problems.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I think the main issue was with the "expectation" part. It carries an insinuation of being forced, or socially shunned, etc. There are choices being made, and choices aren't random. I don't really see expectations that a woman take a lower paying job playing into that very much. I can see more pressure on the other side - like for the man to pay for everything on dates, support their family, etc, with the resulting less pressure on the other side allowing the choice of work that is fulfilling in other ways (societal benefit, fun, less stress, flexibility). Even these roles are choices. A man could choose not to pay for dates, be a stay at home dad, etc. When it come mate selection, there is generally more pressure on the male than the female.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      I'm assume you're male because you're coming at it from that perspective. Do you believe there is no pressure when you're one of the few women in an engineering course? There's a lot at play here, and focusing on your slice may prevent you from seeing the whole.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        I can see pressure if the woman (or any first-of) is one of the first in their role/job to do well and represent their subgroup. This of course implies that there is a stereotype to overcome, which I see as a very small minority sentiment today. I didn't notice any stereotyping related to women in my classes. Also, in my masters courses the gender mix was probably 60% male 40% female. There is a lot at play, and there is plenty of variation by location and other factors.
        Loughla 6y ago
        And what you have done, I am willing to bet, is use your own individual experiences to draw conclusions for the wider world. My own personal experience is that this is almost never a good idea (see what I did there). This is not a values judgment, or meant to be hateful at all, really. This paragraph reads as if you are saying, "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist."
- creata 6y ago
  > Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions. That's not a theory, that's just restating the question! Why is the distribution the way it is, and should we make efforts to change it?
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    Maybe, but I still think there's an important point in there. We (society) do a lot of handwringing about CEO and engineering jobs, but these aren't even remotely the most gender-asymmetric careers out there. According to [1], "Locomotive engineers and operators" are 92.3 percent male. I'm willing to bet that if you can "fix" that problem - or even conclusively identify the cause - gender imbalance issues in other fields will be less contentious. [1] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
    - hanselot 6y ago
      I have never in my entire life met a female plumber, yet somehow I doubt that's caused by the inherent patriarchal bias in the ****-fixing industry. Note: I have never even met a women that aspires to trying to be one.
    - someguydave 6y ago
      “fixing” that “problem” would involve somehow convincing many women to enter a career field in which they have no interest. How do you propose to force them to change their desires?
      - edenhyacinth 6y ago
        That argument assumes women aren't interested in those roles, and that their disinterest is the only or primary thing that causes an imbalance. You have to know that isn't true, which makes this a great example of why people are frustrated about discussing anything 'political' in the workplace.
        6y ago
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  But then why do those careers earn less money? Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Many of those jobs produce fewer tangible outputs, are government jobs, non-profit, or otherwise do not focus on maximizing profit. Positions like teachers, social workers, etc are seen as cost centers, not revenue centers. They are necessary jobs and perform valuable societal functions, but they are supported through other revenues which were not a direct product of their job. As for why one gender chooses those jobs more than others, there are a variety of factors. One of the leading ones is that some people are more likely to choose work that is meaningful over just a dollar amount. Studies show that isn't just based on gender, but also in the some minority groups.
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    > Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less? I am quite confident this is not true, in the broad way you have stated it. There are many categories of jobs with a greater proportion of women, that pay higher than many categories of jobs with a greater proportion of men.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    I think mortality/danger is an interesting axis: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-injury-death-rate-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1995/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-inju... If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived? If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?
    - rovolo 6y ago
      The question is why those careers earn less money. Your assertion is that the careers men choose are more dangerous, so those careers earn more. My question is, are dangerous careers well paid? Here are the totals for occupational deaths: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm ~25% for Transportation and material moving occupations ~20% for Construction ~10% for Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations ~1.5% for Business, Finance, Computers, Math, Engineering, and Legal
giantg2 6y ago
This is basically my point. If you have a srated goal of getting to 1.00 v 1.00 with that metric and focus on the individuals in the same jobs, then you will never get there. It's a mismatch between policy and intent. Using the goal post analogy, there taking their shots at the sideline without realizing where the goal really is. The posts haven't moved, they just see a mirage in another place. "...points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men." I do disagree a little with this part. I know that might be true in some cases, but I think a lot of it is by choice too. My wife could have worked at a regular job and made more money, but she likes her flexible hours and her fun job more. In fact, her hourly rate is more than mine, but she just works fewer hours. So she has the opportunity to make more than me, but chooses not to. It makes sense. If I could work less and have less stress, more fun, and the same benefits or living conditions... I remember a study about African American college grads and aggregate pay being lower than other groups. The analysis showed that the main part of that was because they were choosing jobs based on societal benefit rather than just pay. Things like social workers, teachers, etc. I believe the BLS study showed some of that to be true for the gender wage gap too. Basically, I'm saying that it's not like people are being forced into or away from specific jobs as the main driver.
- Loughla 6y ago
  I'm afraid you've missed my point. Obviously no one is forcing individual people into one career or another. Never in my life has someone held a gun to my head and said, "pick a job in education, because I say so." But, society as a whole, places expectations on some groups, but not others. Whether those expectations are to be the caregiver or big tough man who provides for the family. Therefore, career choice, and the pay outcomes, are not truly based on merit or ability, and can be controlled by unfair external factors. Further, what this means is that the playing field is not level. Some people will have advantages, just because of how they were born - which is the issue we started with. Also - while I applaud you and your wife's position, you are confusing anecdotal data with evidence. It does tell a story, absolutely, but it proves nothing by itself. >The analysis showed that the main part of that was because they were choosing jobs based on societal benefit rather than just pay. Why do you think that would be the case? Why do you believe one subset of students would choose those careers in larger numbers than other groups?
jimbokun 6y ago
> Using your own metric of a broad view, it's probably more of a problem than a specific man versus a specific woman, because it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. The problem is "societal norms" are incredibly vague and difficult to pin down or prove or even define. It is very dangerous to start socially engineering all of society and our economy by a small, unrepresentative, self selected group of activists arbitrarily determining each person's "value" and rearranging society to fit their whims. > The problem is, these types of arguments are (in my experience as a professional) a thin veneer of 'civility' over a massive ocean of bigotry and idiocy in many cases. Yes, I've definitely seen this coming from many self proclaimed progressives.

nostromo 6y ago

> it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.

Loughla 6y ago
Obviously that is the case. It would be startling if adults chose careers in exactly even proportions, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, or whatever. BUT, based on human developmental theory and how people make decisions, no choice is truly random. Therefore, there must be a reason for those choices. Your theory offers no explanation other than random chance, from what I can tell. Identifying inputs and outcomes is sort of the point of solving problems.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I think the main issue was with the "expectation" part. It carries an insinuation of being forced, or socially shunned, etc. There are choices being made, and choices aren't random. I don't really see expectations that a woman take a lower paying job playing into that very much. I can see more pressure on the other side - like for the man to pay for everything on dates, support their family, etc, with the resulting less pressure on the other side allowing the choice of work that is fulfilling in other ways (societal benefit, fun, less stress, flexibility). Even these roles are choices. A man could choose not to pay for dates, be a stay at home dad, etc. When it come mate selection, there is generally more pressure on the male than the female.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    I'm assume you're male because you're coming at it from that perspective. Do you believe there is no pressure when you're one of the few women in an engineering course? There's a lot at play here, and focusing on your slice may prevent you from seeing the whole.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I can see pressure if the woman (or any first-of) is one of the first in their role/job to do well and represent their subgroup. This of course implies that there is a stereotype to overcome, which I see as a very small minority sentiment today. I didn't notice any stereotyping related to women in my classes. Also, in my masters courses the gender mix was probably 60% male 40% female. There is a lot at play, and there is plenty of variation by location and other factors.
      - Loughla 6y ago
        And what you have done, I am willing to bet, is use your own individual experiences to draw conclusions for the wider world. My own personal experience is that this is almost never a good idea (see what I did there). This is not a values judgment, or meant to be hateful at all, really. This paragraph reads as if you are saying, "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist."
creata 6y ago
> Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions. That's not a theory, that's just restating the question! Why is the distribution the way it is, and should we make efforts to change it?
- stickfigure 6y ago
  Maybe, but I still think there's an important point in there. We (society) do a lot of handwringing about CEO and engineering jobs, but these aren't even remotely the most gender-asymmetric careers out there. According to [1], "Locomotive engineers and operators" are 92.3 percent male. I'm willing to bet that if you can "fix" that problem - or even conclusively identify the cause - gender imbalance issues in other fields will be less contentious. [1] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
  - hanselot 6y ago
    I have never in my entire life met a female plumber, yet somehow I doubt that's caused by the inherent patriarchal bias in the ****-fixing industry. Note: I have never even met a women that aspires to trying to be one.
  - someguydave 6y ago
    “fixing” that “problem” would involve somehow convincing many women to enter a career field in which they have no interest. How do you propose to force them to change their desires?
    - edenhyacinth 6y ago
      That argument assumes women aren't interested in those roles, and that their disinterest is the only or primary thing that causes an imbalance. You have to know that isn't true, which makes this a great example of why people are frustrated about discussing anything 'political' in the workplace.
      - 6y ago
SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
But then why do those careers earn less money? Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less?
- giantg2 6y ago
  Many of those jobs produce fewer tangible outputs, are government jobs, non-profit, or otherwise do not focus on maximizing profit. Positions like teachers, social workers, etc are seen as cost centers, not revenue centers. They are necessary jobs and perform valuable societal functions, but they are supported through other revenues which were not a direct product of their job. As for why one gender chooses those jobs more than others, there are a variety of factors. One of the leading ones is that some people are more likely to choose work that is meaningful over just a dollar amount. Studies show that isn't just based on gender, but also in the some minority groups.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  > Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less? I am quite confident this is not true, in the broad way you have stated it. There are many categories of jobs with a greater proportion of women, that pay higher than many categories of jobs with a greater proportion of men.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  I think mortality/danger is an interesting axis: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-injury-death-rate-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1995/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-inju... If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived? If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?
  - rovolo 6y ago
    The question is why those careers earn less money. Your assertion is that the careers men choose are more dangerous, so those careers earn more. My question is, are dangerous careers well paid? Here are the totals for occupational deaths: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm ~25% for Transportation and material moving occupations ~20% for Construction ~10% for Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations ~1.5% for Business, Finance, Computers, Math, Engineering, and Legal

giantg2 6y ago

This is basically my point. If you have a srated goal of getting to 1.00 v 1.00 with that metric and focus on the individuals in the same jobs, then you will never get there. It's a mismatch between policy and intent. Using the goal post analogy, there taking their shots at the sideline without realizing where the goal really is. The posts haven't moved, they just see a mirage in another place. "...points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men." I do disagree a little with this part. I know that might be true in some cases, but I think a lot of it is by choice too. My wife could have worked at a regular job and made more money, but she likes her flexible hours and her fun job more. In fact, her hourly rate is more than mine, but she just works fewer hours. So she has the opportunity to make more than me, but chooses not to. It makes sense. If I could work less and have less stress, more fun, and the same benefits or living conditions... I remember a study about African American college grads and aggregate pay being lower than other groups. The analysis showed that the main part of that was because they were choosing jobs based on societal benefit rather than just pay. Things like social workers, teachers, etc. I believe the BLS study showed some of that to be true for the gender wage gap too. Basically, I'm saying that it's not like people are being forced into or away from specific jobs as the main driver.

Loughla 6y ago
I'm afraid you've missed my point. Obviously no one is forcing individual people into one career or another. Never in my life has someone held a gun to my head and said, "pick a job in education, because I say so." But, society as a whole, places expectations on some groups, but not others. Whether those expectations are to be the caregiver or big tough man who provides for the family. Therefore, career choice, and the pay outcomes, are not truly based on merit or ability, and can be controlled by unfair external factors. Further, what this means is that the playing field is not level. Some people will have advantages, just because of how they were born - which is the issue we started with. Also - while I applaud you and your wife's position, you are confusing anecdotal data with evidence. It does tell a story, absolutely, but it proves nothing by itself. >The analysis showed that the main part of that was because they were choosing jobs based on societal benefit rather than just pay. Why do you think that would be the case? Why do you believe one subset of students would choose those careers in larger numbers than other groups?

jimbokun 6y ago

> Using your own metric of a broad view, it's probably more of a problem than a specific man versus a specific woman, because it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. The problem is "societal norms" are incredibly vague and difficult to pin down or prove or even define. It is very dangerous to start socially engineering all of society and our economy by a small, unrepresentative, self selected group of activists arbitrarily determining each person's "value" and rearranging society to fit their whims. > The problem is, these types of arguments are (in my experience as a professional) a thin veneer of 'civility' over a massive ocean of bigotry and idiocy in many cases. Yes, I've definitely seen this coming from many self proclaimed progressives.