4 ms·
> That boils down to am excuse at best and a justification at worst. It's neither. It's a reason, an explanation. > I think it's more complicated than "Women
by epicureanideal 5y ago
> That boils down to am excuse at best and a justification at worst.
It's neither. It's a reason, an explanation.
> I think it's more complicated than "Women just entirely voluntarily choose something else."
From what I understand, the research shows that isn't the case. Basically all of the earning gap is explained by choices, not discrimination.
> Historically, teachers made relatively good pay and were respected. That was when it was a mostly male profession. That changed when it became a mostly female profession.
Correlation is not causation though. I know you know that, but just stating it for others that are reading this.
- esyir 5y ago> Historically, teachers made relatively good pay and were respected. That was when it was a mostly male profession. That changed when it became a mostly female profession. The alternative explanation can be this: Societal expectations is that the resource provision is core to male value. This can be observed on the disproportionate impact of wealth on relationship attractiveness between the genders [1], men generally benefit more from status than women, and women tend to benefit more from attractiveness than men [2].- With incentives like this, I find it unsurprising that men are more likely to chase status. It's also a cleaner model, with clearer causal lines than "society is built around paying women less". [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8531056/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8531056/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6437035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6437035/