Will this feminist narrative become undone in the next world war?

andekwarhola

Threads like this signal that AH has reached peak postmodern. You see the title and realize that most of the 'real' is now indistinguishable from pastiche.

Silver Lynel

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

Hours worked WILL matter as employees progress through their career.

One might move up through the different pay brackets depending on performance reviews etc and the amount of time an employee puts in will have an impact on this.

It will have an impact on promotions and bonuses etc.

One of the biggest failings of the "pay gap" argument is that nobody seems to look at case studies that would show actual sexism in action.

If you look at, say, 2 McDonalds employess. Both one week into their careers at Mcdonalds. Both at the stage where they are doing cashier duties and nothing else. Is the male employee being paid more than the female employee?

If you look at them again in a year where the man has been working extra hours and covering shifts etc and the woman hasn't been doing this quite so much then you are no longer comparing like for like. Of course he will be getting paid more. They would have done a salary review and he will have been moved up a level based on merit. In summary, he is actually earning more.

When people say "equal pay for equal work" they need to show examples of people in the exact same position for the exact same time getting paid differently because of gender.

That's what I'm not seeing. Honest, transparent, case studies where we can clearly see that Company X has a blatant sexist/racist/whatever pay structure.

The only counter argument I see to that is "well they are just hiding it well" or the extremely vague "unconscious bias" argument.

Outside of that we might see jobs being boiled down to a title like "programmer" and then say that "male programmers get paid more than female programmers" but this removes any detail from their job description allowing a programmer who works 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, to be compared to a programmer who works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

An example that doesn't work would be like saying the male actor in a movie got paid more than the female actor in the same movie. Firstly, their pay will be negotiated by their agent most likely. Secondly, they are playing different roles in the movie. You can't boil their job down to "Actor" and then point out that there are different sized paychecks being taken home at the end of the day.

This isn't an honest assessment of a situation. It's an attempt to craft a narrative that will then be sold to wider society.

How about this...

If Single Mother A earns 60,000 per year and spends 50% of it on her son and Married Man B earns 120,000 per year and spends 75% of it on his wife and daughter then is that a net gain for women?

jackofalltrades

Lies, damned lies, statistics and then the gender pay gap.

It has to be one of the most disingenuous uses of statistics I've seen in a long time.
It really should be called out repeatedly until people won't use it anymore due to fear of ridicule.
What really matters is the unexplained gender pay gap and what causes it.

Single women in this country out earn single men by 18%, it's rare you see this being mentioned.
So the issue looks like it stems from caring for children.

Grayson

Silver Lynel wrote: »

If you look at, say, 2 McDonalds employess. Both one week into their careers at Mcdonalds. Both at the stage where they are doing cashier duties and nothing else. Is the male employee being paid more than the female employee?

But you're also assuming that the male works more. That's the problem with most arguments against the pay gap. They state that men work more hours etc and that's why they get paid more.

And the crazy thing is that for salaried workers, if you get the your job done in less time than you are a better worker.

Google are being sued at the moment. Stats from the department of labour show that women's pay is 6 standard deviations out compared to men. That's massive.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2017/08/09/one-in-100-million-chance-alleged-gender-pay-gap-at-google-is-random-says-class-action-lawyer/#35b747f12d52

The class-action would follow a suit against the tech giant filed earlier this year by the United States Department of Labor, which said it found evidence of an "extreme" gender pay gap at the company. Finberg said the class-action case will draw on the DOL analysis, which found between six and seven standard deviations between wage rates of men and women based on a snapshot of the salaries of 21,000 workers at Google's Mountain View headquarters.

"How do you explain that?" Finberg asked. "The chance of that occurring randomly is one in 100 million."

Silver Lynel

Grayson wrote: »

But you're also assuming that the male works more. That's the problem with most arguments against the pay gap. They state that men work more hours etc and that's why they get paid more.

And the crazy thing is that for salaried workers, if you get the your job done in less time than you are a better worker.

Google are being sued at the moment. Stats from the department of labour show that women's pay is 6 standard deviations out compared to men. That's massive.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2017/08/09/one-in-100-million-chance-alleged-gender-pay-gap-at-google-is-random-says-class-action-lawyer/#35b747f12d52

I'm not assuming anything.

I am saying that we need to see actual case studies to see the "gender pay gap" in action.

So if a large corporation like Google employs 2 people in the same role today are they being paid the same today? We need to see examples of this.

There's no point in comparing the same 2 employees in a year when their career paths have started to diverge.

Is there a Gender Pay Gap in minimum wage jobs where all employees earn the minimum wage? Obviously not.

Now consider a company that has certain levels of pay for certain employees. All employees on Level One for example are being paid the same regardless of race, gender etc. Employees can move from Level One to Level Two but then a comparison between Level One employees and Level Two employees is not like for like.

You said: "And the crazy thing is that for salaried workers, if you get the your job done in less time than you are a better worker"

That statement is only true if the work is finite. If a job consisted of, say, processing orders then there is an endless stream of orders. One employee might process 350 orders per day while another only processes 300. They get the same salary NOW, yes, but when promotion time comes around this will count for something. When bonus time comes around this will count for something.

Your Google example says they compared 21,000 salaries. So did they just divide them into "men" and "women", take an average and say "see!"?

This is part of the problem. You need to take specific employees and make a deep comparison to see why Employee A earns more than Employee B.

The Gender Wage Gap answers the question of what is the difference between men and womens salaries on average. It does nothing to address why.

We could solve the pay gap tomorrow by giving every woman a raise that would be equivalent to Total Male Wages minus Total Female Wages divided by Number Of Females In The Company. Would all the women have earned that pay raise?

Like I said, you need to have specific case studies that focus on individuals to actually see the pay gap in action.

Just looking at what "men" earn and then looking at what "women" earn is missing all of the specific details that would reveal exactly why this happens.

dudara

marcus001 wrote: »

You think that just because a job is salaried that hours worked don't matter?

Sorry, I wasn't clear when I said that.

The hours worked will matter when it comes to aspects such as evaluation, bonus and promotion, which all increase earning ability.

But in terms of monthly core salary, no, hours worked don't matter, unless you also have an overtime arrangement. This is why using base salary as a metric is difficult as it can conceal differences in work levels.

Manic Moran

hairyslug wrote: »

I watched Starship troopers last night, highly recommended, 7 stars

Honestly, that is the best answer. However, I don't think, for example, the US is ready for that sort of thing.

I'm not sure that any country is. The closest that any nation has gotten to integrated military in conventional combat was Israel, and they gave since backed away from it. Examples from the Red Army tend to involve individual females, such as pilots or snipers, not mixed units. The closest being tank crews, and even that was rare and tankers are a different breed to infantry. Professional militaries which have integrated like Canada or Ireland have not been tested. The concern isn't whether or not women can do the jobs, but the effect it has on the operation of the unit. Until we have run out of men to fill infantry slots, or until we get over our prudishness which prevents sharing shower facilities or whatnot*, what benefit do we get from total integration?

*Granted, combat has a way of rearranging your priorities, and such peacetime concerns would probably vanish very quickly, but as we say, train as you fight.

pwurple

At this stage in my life, I think women work just as hard, but there are two major differences.

First of all, the negotiation skills are missing. I think it can be taught, but it isn't. I was in the lucky position to have some exposure as a child in the family business. Saw customers haggling, negotiations with suppliers etc. I learnt how to do it young.

I most certainly did it every time my pay was discussed. I never took a 5% increment if offered, I haggled it up, armed with industry averages, demanding they look at my peers wages etc.

I'm pretty much self-employed now, doing contract/consult work. I charge what the market can bear. I've done many many pay reviews for staff. Very few other women behave as I do in a pay review, insisting the increment doesn't apply to them etc. Plenty of them probably work similar jobs to me, are more intelligent, better with people etc, but my theory is that sometimes, if they are not paid as much, it could be because they didn't demand it. I can't OFFER a 10% pay rise to bring someone up to their peer. I can offer 5%, they have to demand the rest. Now, that's not to say someone may assume because they are female, they *should* be paid less... maybe that happens too.


Second difference is this.. It still pisses me off that I couldn't transfer my leave after having babies to my husband. I'm self-employed, pay my tax and PRSI, but if I'm not working , I'm not earning. ( And neither is anyone else depending on me btw ) Baby arrived, first 12 weeks or so, I'm recovering myself, bit broke now, could REALLY do with going back to work. No crèche will take a 3 month old, and I kinda don't want to do that anyway... but hey I think, I can transfer it to my husband, he will take some time off, and we'll be ok. His company pays full mat leave. Oh wait. Department of social protection says no. There is only one case in which mat leave can be transferred to husband. Guess that situation? Death of Mother. Cheers guys, I'll give that one a miss.

This kind of difference drives a lot of women's decisions on employment. Will I take this crappier, lower paid secure job, because it's effectively the govt sanctioned way of dealing with maternity. Or, will I take this kick-ass lucrative slightly risky job with no maternity. AND I have no way of transferring anything to my husband should I need to. What do you think happens? These policies have an impact.

Resist ZOG

Want to end the so-called pay gap? Make women spend less time raising their children and more time working. That's the only fair way to do it.

professore

pwurple wrote: »

At this stage in my life, I think women work just as hard, but there are two major differences.

First of all, the negotiation skills are missing. I think it can be taught, but it isn't. I was in the lucky position to have some exposure as a child in the family business. Saw customers haggling, negotiations with suppliers etc. I learnt how to do it young.

I most certainly did it every time my pay was discussed. I never took a 5% increment if offered, I haggled it up, armed with industry averages, demanding they look at my peers wages etc.

I'm pretty much self-employed now, doing contract/consult work. I charge what the market can bear. I've done many many pay reviews for staff. Very few other women behave as I do in a pay review, insisting the increment doesn't apply to them etc. Plenty of them probably work similar jobs to me, are more intelligent, better with people etc, but my theory is that sometimes, if they are not paid as much, it could be because they didn't demand it. I can't OFFER a 10% pay rise to bring someone up to their peer. I can offer 5%, they have to demand the rest. Now, that's not to say someone may assume because they are female, they *should* be paid less... maybe that happens too.


Second difference is this.. It still pisses me off that I couldn't transfer my leave after having babies to my husband. I'm self-employed, pay my tax and PRSI, but if I'm not working , I'm not earning. ( And neither is anyone else depending on me btw ) Baby arrived, first 12 weeks or so, I'm recovering myself, bit broke now, could REALLY do with going back to work. No crèche will take a 3 month old, and I kinda don't want to do that anyway... but hey I think, I can transfer it to my husband, he will take some time off, and we'll be ok. His company pays full mat leave. Oh wait. Department of social protection says no. There is only one case in which mat leave can be transferred to husband. Guess that situation? Death of Mother. Cheers guys, I'll give that one a miss.

This kind of difference drives a lot of women's decisions on employment. Will I take this crappier, lower paid secure job, because it's effectively the govt sanctioned way of dealing with maternity. Or, will I take this kick-ass lucrative slightly risky job with no maternity. AND I have no way of transferring anything to my husband should I need to. What do you think happens? These policies have an impact.

Now HERE is a genuine issue I can get behind. Not manspreading or mansplaining BS. I think this was the point Kevin Myers was actually trying to make about the "2 Jewish women" at the BBC but made an utter hames of it.

professore

The class-action would follow a suit against the tech giant filed earlier this year by the United States Department of Labor, which said it found evidence of an "extreme" gender pay gap at the company. Finberg said the class-action case will draw on the DOL analysis, which found between six and seven standard deviations between wage rates of men and women based on a snapshot of the salaries of 21,000 workers at Google's Mountain View headquarters.

"How do you explain that?" Finberg asked. "The chance of that occurring randomly is one in 100 million."

Yeah it's not random, and the chances are extremely low. The average women are doing different lower paid jobs than the average man at Google. I would bet that the star programmers are nearly all white or asian men. The top performance related bonus sales people are predominantly men. HR and Marketing are predominantly women.