4 ms·

Is that true in places like South Korea as well or only in the west? Was there a real wage gap in the US, say, a hundred years ago, when women finally got the

Is that true in places like South Korea as well or only in the west? Was there a real wage gap in the US, say, a hundred years ago, when women finally got the right to vote?

mpweiher 4y ago
Equal pay legislation was introduced in the US 60 years ago in 1963. I would guess it wasn't introduced just for fun, so presumably before that unequal pay was commonplace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 South Korea introduced equal pay legislation in 1987. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ I looked around a little and couldn't find anything concrete on the gender earnings gap in South Korea, it seems a lot of the same sorts of mechanisms as in the west, just more of that. So it seems like corporate culture is a real shit-show, so possibly more women opt out of that. But I really have no idea. Example: "The life of the average working Korean woman in a chaebol or big company is not easy. The late-night company dinners that pressure females to drink..." Hmm...as usual, an issue that is completely gender neutral is presented as "women most affected" (or in fact: "only women affected"). https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-in-south-korea/ https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-...
- lapcat 4y ago
  > an issue that is completely gender neutral It's not completely gender neutral. For example, women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol. Also, women tend to be more physically vulnerable than men in situations involving alcohol intoxication, for a number of reasons. (One of which is that the penis tends to be largely non-functional sexually when you're passed out.) Marcel, you've always emphasized the physical differences between men and women, but you seem to ignore them here?
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    > It's not completely gender neutral. Yes it is. There is nothing discriminatory going on. Men and women are being treated exactly the same. Now whether this is a good thing or not or should be abolished or not is a different matter. You are confusing equality of input (non-discrimination, gender neutrality) with equality of results. > women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol On average. So? There are also men who get more intoxicated than the average woman, so they are being discriminated against more. Or men who don't drink (most) alcohol at all. For example, I essentially cannot drink wine or beer. And yes, that has an impact. This is not a gendered issue and definitely not discrimination, even if outcomes can differ, statistically, by gender. Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination. > emphasized the physical differences between men and women, I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. And I am definitely not ignoring them here. The physiological (and psychological) differences result in different outcomes, on average, for men and women given the same non-discriminatory, non-gendered inputs. So the inconsistency you're detecting is not mine...you might have to look elsewhere (a mirror might do)... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > There is nothing discriminatory going on. I have no wish to argue about what discrimination means, but I think you have a rather narrow (and largely useless) interpretation of "completely gender neutral", whereby something can be deemed completely gender neutral regardless of whether it generates a huge difference in outcome by gender. After all, there are always individual differences among members of each gender, so if we have to ignore the averages, then what's left? According to your interpretation, it seems that the only issues that are not completely gender neutral are specifically where men are required to do X and women not-X, which as I said is largely useless for practical discussion (one of the few examples is the US Selective Service, which does discriminate by both gender and age). The main question to me is not just whether an outcome is actually unequal, the question is whether an outcome is predictably unequal. When someone applies an input, allegedly gender neutral, that they know in advance will produce important gender differences in output, how can they honestly claim that it's completely gender neutral? That's not fooling me, at any rate; it seems more like self-deception. Let me put it this way: if you wanted to discriminate against a certain class of people, but you needed plausible deniability, then what would you do? You would select arbitrary criteria, allegedly neutral, that play the averages and tend to filter out the undesirables. It's not perfect discrimination, some false positives and negatives, but "better" than nothing, right? > Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination. This seems like a rather minor issue. It's a special case. I don't think it carries much weight overall, pardon the pun. The economy doesn't seem to be littered with disappointed firefighter wannabes. "I want to be a firefighter" is what children say, not generally what adult women are saying about gender inequality. Regardless, I don't think it makes much sense to compare physical fitness standards for firefighters and late-night drinking "fitness" for business. Nobody is going to die if you don't drink, though somebody could die if you do drink! Drinking is not even a plausibly reasonable requirement for work. > I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. Well, I've known you for years, and I've observed that you constantly go out of your way to argue with strangers on the internet about gender. Of course I'm doing it in this submission, but I can't even begin to match your prolificness, nor do I aspire to. ;-) Anyway, quibbling aside, the larger issue is that there are often perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations, explanations that have nothing to do with "gender preferences", unless you would claim that "not wanting to get sexually harassed or assaulted" is just a preference.

Is that true in places like South Korea as well or only in the west? Was there a real wage gap in the US, say, a hundred years ago, when women finally got the right to vote?

mpweiher 4y ago

Equal pay legislation was introduced in the US 60 years ago in 1963. I would guess it wasn't introduced just for fun, so presumably before that unequal pay was commonplace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 South Korea introduced equal pay legislation in 1987. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/27217/64843/ I looked around a little and couldn't find anything concrete on the gender earnings gap in South Korea, it seems a lot of the same sorts of mechanisms as in the west, just more of that. So it seems like corporate culture is a real shit-show, so possibly more women opt out of that. But I really have no idea. Example: "The life of the average working Korean woman in a chaebol or big company is not easy. The late-night company dinners that pressure females to drink..." Hmm...as usual, an issue that is completely gender neutral is presented as "women most affected" (or in fact: "only women affected"). https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-in-south-korea/ https://www.seoulz.com/quick-facts-about-the-gender-pay-gap-...

lapcat 4y ago
> an issue that is completely gender neutral It's not completely gender neutral. For example, women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol. Also, women tend to be more physically vulnerable than men in situations involving alcohol intoxication, for a number of reasons. (One of which is that the penis tends to be largely non-functional sexually when you're passed out.) Marcel, you've always emphasized the physical differences between men and women, but you seem to ignore them here?
- mpweiher 4y ago
  > It's not completely gender neutral. Yes it is. There is nothing discriminatory going on. Men and women are being treated exactly the same. Now whether this is a good thing or not or should be abolished or not is a different matter. You are confusing equality of input (non-discrimination, gender neutrality) with equality of results. > women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol On average. So? There are also men who get more intoxicated than the average woman, so they are being discriminated against more. Or men who don't drink (most) alcohol at all. For example, I essentially cannot drink wine or beer. And yes, that has an impact. This is not a gendered issue and definitely not discrimination, even if outcomes can differ, statistically, by gender. Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination. > emphasized the physical differences between men and women, I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. And I am definitely not ignoring them here. The physiological (and psychological) differences result in different outcomes, on average, for men and women given the same non-discriminatory, non-gendered inputs. So the inconsistency you're detecting is not mine...you might have to look elsewhere (a mirror might do)... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > There is nothing discriminatory going on. I have no wish to argue about what discrimination means, but I think you have a rather narrow (and largely useless) interpretation of "completely gender neutral", whereby something can be deemed completely gender neutral regardless of whether it generates a huge difference in outcome by gender. After all, there are always individual differences among members of each gender, so if we have to ignore the averages, then what's left? According to your interpretation, it seems that the only issues that are not completely gender neutral are specifically where men are required to do X and women not-X, which as I said is largely useless for practical discussion (one of the few examples is the US Selective Service, which does discriminate by both gender and age). The main question to me is not just whether an outcome is actually unequal, the question is whether an outcome is predictably unequal. When someone applies an input, allegedly gender neutral, that they know in advance will produce important gender differences in output, how can they honestly claim that it's completely gender neutral? That's not fooling me, at any rate; it seems more like self-deception. Let me put it this way: if you wanted to discriminate against a certain class of people, but you needed plausible deniability, then what would you do? You would select arbitrary criteria, allegedly neutral, that play the averages and tend to filter out the undesirables. It's not perfect discrimination, some false positives and negatives, but "better" than nothing, right? > Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination. This seems like a rather minor issue. It's a special case. I don't think it carries much weight overall, pardon the pun. The economy doesn't seem to be littered with disappointed firefighter wannabes. "I want to be a firefighter" is what children say, not generally what adult women are saying about gender inequality. Regardless, I don't think it makes much sense to compare physical fitness standards for firefighters and late-night drinking "fitness" for business. Nobody is going to die if you don't drink, though somebody could die if you do drink! Drinking is not even a plausibly reasonable requirement for work. > I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them. Well, I've known you for years, and I've observed that you constantly go out of your way to argue with strangers on the internet about gender. Of course I'm doing it in this submission, but I can't even begin to match your prolificness, nor do I aspire to. ;-) Anyway, quibbling aside, the larger issue is that there are often perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations, explanations that have nothing to do with "gender preferences", unless you would claim that "not wanting to get sexually harassed or assaulted" is just a preference.