4 ms·

It could be that the fact that urban single childless women earn more is a sign of things to come - a wave that with time will propogate to all ages and locatio

by lsd5you 13y ago

It could be that the fact that urban single childless women earn more is a sign of things to come - a wave that with time will propogate to all ages and locations. Now it could also be that this is the point in their lives when society values women the most and this is why they get paid well at that age. Attractive young women are desirable as they make other (especially male) employees happier as well as having advantages in certain roles (e.g. sales). This 'premium' they enjoy is despite the risk of child birth being at its highest. I know that this is very cynical point of view, but is it unrealistic? I have definitely witnessed it and it could well be a significant factor. Male attitudes to women are an extremely strong force in shaping society, and we might well expect them to go as far as distorting the job market as well. I know it is a little bit sad to undermine female accomplishment in this manner, but it is quite plausible. This mechanism would also contribute the glass ceiling. It is desireable to have young,attractive women around, but not to promote them to the more senior positions.

estebank 13y ago
I know this will be seen as misogynistic, but it's far from the intention: in at least one latin american country (so it can possibly be just a matter of that society) office drama is kept in check while there is <50% of women in the office (percentage taken out of my posterior). Above that the amount of backstabbing and mean gossiping going around makes the places unbearable to work in. And this is not something I've seen only myself, as my female friends have independently made comments about this. Of course, I encourage equal opportunities, but there are some weird social interactions depending on the group's composition. This can be seen in male predominating places as well, which can be just as toxic (if not more) to somebody who doesn't look like the rest. I'm just pointing that hiring women is not all happiness all around, because hiring people is not happiness all around. I guess it comes down to homogeneity, in the same way you can claim there is no racism in countries with low inmigration and no heterogeneous population. Women in charge are usually much better at playing office politics, and I mean this as one of the highest of praises in an office setting. Being able to navigate through all the bullshit while keeping sane is precisely what somebody in a big company needs. I'm reminded of George Carlin's comment on God: "I'm convinced that if there is a god. It must be a man, because looking at the state of things, no woman would have fucked up so badly." So no, hiring young, attractive women and not promoting is completely backwards. You hire women that you will promote, because they are so much better at leading. That being said, all generalisations are wrong. I've met women and men alike that have been backstabbing misanthropes, but believing that men and women are equals is like denying that Dutch people are tall, or that I'm not too short to reach the top drawer at my house. That's why you have specialisation, I won't play basketball and it is unlikely there is a Dutch jockey. If you are hiring and thinking from the beginning in terms of men or women you are missing the real value of that person, which may or may not align with your precognitions. EDIT: got the joke wrong (first "woman" is "man")
Domenic_S 13y ago
> Now it could also be that this is the point in their lives when society values women the most and this is why they get paid well at that age. Troubling. Why would this be? What does the System have to gain by valuing women of prime child-bearing age more than women of other ages? Less cynically: Women also have a "career option" not available to men: mother, and by extension stay-at-home mom. Is it possible that this group of women self-selects out of the workforce -- or the other way around, the women that achieve high career status tend to select out of stay-at-home motherhood?
- rada 13y ago
  Women also have a "career option" not available to men: mother, and by extension stay-at-home mom. Errr... what? My husband was a stay-at-home dad for a couple years, and he wasn't the only stay-at-home dad in his "mommy" group. Approximately 3.5% of stay-at-home parents in the U.S. are fathers, and that number is growing.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    "was" for a "couple years" and 3.5% should tell you why I presented it as a nearly-exclusively female option, but you are correct that the option is available for men.
    - rada 13y ago
      You are confusing "available" with "frequent". Two different things entirely.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Is it possible that this group of women self-selects out of the workforce -- or the other way around, the women that achieve high career status tend to select out of stay-at-home motherhood? Obviously nobody is forcing women to stay at home at the point of a gun. However, I think it can't be discounted the degree to which women are pressured socially to take on primary caregiver roles. My wife and I (~30, educated professionals) have a 8-month old. My wife as zero interest in staying at home. But from the minute she got pregnant the pressure started. My mom and her mom (both of whom work/ed) suggested that may she should stay at home for a few years when the baby was young. She's constantly bombarded by parenting fads that tell her she's a bad mom if she doesn't breastfeed/wear her baby around in a sling/etc. Those fads are never very compatible with professional working life. Meanwhile, nobody has any expectations of me. Nobody wonders why I don't take a few years off to raise the kid. None of the parenting fads are aimed at me. Heck, my own mother gets nervous whenever I have responsibility for the kid.

by lsd5you 13y ago

estebank 13y ago

I know this will be seen as misogynistic, but it's far from the intention: in at least one latin american country (so it can possibly be just a matter of that society) office drama is kept in check while there is <50% of women in the office (percentage taken out of my posterior). Above that the amount of backstabbing and mean gossiping going around makes the places unbearable to work in. And this is not something I've seen only myself, as my female friends have independently made comments about this. Of course, I encourage equal opportunities, but there are some weird social interactions depending on the group's composition. This can be seen in male predominating places as well, which can be just as toxic (if not more) to somebody who doesn't look like the rest. I'm just pointing that hiring women is not all happiness all around, because hiring people is not happiness all around. I guess it comes down to homogeneity, in the same way you can claim there is no racism in countries with low inmigration and no heterogeneous population. Women in charge are usually much better at playing office politics, and I mean this as one of the highest of praises in an office setting. Being able to navigate through all the bullshit while keeping sane is precisely what somebody in a big company needs. I'm reminded of George Carlin's comment on God: "I'm convinced that if there is a god. It must be a man, because looking at the state of things, no woman would have fucked up so badly." So no, hiring young, attractive women and not promoting is completely backwards. You hire women that you will promote, because they are so much better at leading. That being said, all generalisations are wrong. I've met women and men alike that have been backstabbing misanthropes, but believing that men and women are equals is like denying that Dutch people are tall, or that I'm not too short to reach the top drawer at my house. That's why you have specialisation, I won't play basketball and it is unlikely there is a Dutch jockey. If you are hiring and thinking from the beginning in terms of men or women you are missing the real value of that person, which may or may not align with your precognitions. EDIT: got the joke wrong (first "woman" is "man")

Domenic_S 13y ago

> Now it could also be that this is the point in their lives when society values women the most and this is why they get paid well at that age. Troubling. Why would this be? What does the System have to gain by valuing women of prime child-bearing age more than women of other ages? Less cynically: Women also have a "career option" not available to men: mother, and by extension stay-at-home mom. Is it possible that this group of women self-selects out of the workforce -- or the other way around, the women that achieve high career status tend to select out of stay-at-home motherhood?

rada 13y ago
Women also have a "career option" not available to men: mother, and by extension stay-at-home mom. Errr... what? My husband was a stay-at-home dad for a couple years, and he wasn't the only stay-at-home dad in his "mommy" group. Approximately 3.5% of stay-at-home parents in the U.S. are fathers, and that number is growing.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  "was" for a "couple years" and 3.5% should tell you why I presented it as a nearly-exclusively female option, but you are correct that the option is available for men.
  - rada 13y ago
    You are confusing "available" with "frequent". Two different things entirely.
rayiner 13y ago
> Is it possible that this group of women self-selects out of the workforce -- or the other way around, the women that achieve high career status tend to select out of stay-at-home motherhood? Obviously nobody is forcing women to stay at home at the point of a gun. However, I think it can't be discounted the degree to which women are pressured socially to take on primary caregiver roles. My wife and I (~30, educated professionals) have a 8-month old. My wife as zero interest in staying at home. But from the minute she got pregnant the pressure started. My mom and her mom (both of whom work/ed) suggested that may she should stay at home for a few years when the baby was young. She's constantly bombarded by parenting fads that tell her she's a bad mom if she doesn't breastfeed/wear her baby around in a sling/etc. Those fads are never very compatible with professional working life. Meanwhile, nobody has any expectations of me. Nobody wonders why I don't take a few years off to raise the kid. None of the parenting fads are aimed at me. Heck, my own mother gets nervous whenever I have responsibility for the kid.