Gender pay gap- real or just a result of bad negotiations?

PeterParker957

Tell me how wrote: »

Is this a thread about how the female winner of the tennis grand slam competitions get the same pay as the male even though they only play a maximum of 60% of the sets that the men play?

Just wondering before I join in...:rolleyes:

I've asked that before and never got an answer!!!!!

meeeeh

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I've merely responded to your, frankly, outlandish claims about it somehow being sexism that women are less interested in politics (and I provided a source for that earlier) and the fact they earn less.

Where did I say that? What the hell talking about? As I said you don't make any sense.

steddyeddy

Do people not agree that the soci-economic circumstances you're born into have more of an effect than your gender?

VinLieger

Aurora111 wrote: »

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

So am I

Aurora111 wrote: »

Women say they have been sexually harrassed. It didn't happen.

I thought you werent blaming all men for some men being assholes, this seems to refute that claim.

Aurora111 wrote: »

Economic forums say there is a gender gap. No it doesn't exist.

Nope nobody has said there isnt a gender gap, you have claimed there is a gender pay gap which there isn't, what there is is a gender earnings gap as has been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread but you have conveniently ignored or refused to engage with any of those posts

Aurora111 wrote: »

Women say they are kept down in politics. No it doesn't happen.

It doesn't, there is equality of opportunity in politics, if you think some of the parties involved are sexist or don't give equality of opportunity to women that's not an institutional issues that's a party issue, but guess what you have the option to setup your own women's only party if you want, i notice that hasn't been done, i wonder why?

Aurora111 wrote: »

I wonder are you actually finding it too hard to look at areas where men abuse women?

Ahh again blaming all men for the actions of a few which you previously claimed to not be doing, good on you

Aurora111 wrote: »

Whereas on the contrary, I can see that men are treated badly in the area of access to children after divorce. I can see this happens. I don't whitewash. I'm not sure why you do.

Awww you really don't know how to have a debate or discussion do you? Just because people disagree with you does not = whitewashing.

Also again seemingly blaming the many for the actions of a few, nice little pattern there

grogi

Tell me how wrote: »

Is this a thread about how the female winner of the tennis grand slam competitions get the same pay as the male even though they only play a maximum of 60% of the sets that the men play?

Just wondering before I join in...:rolleyes:

Professional athletes are not paid for their time on the pitch or court. It is the enormous risk they have taken years ago, years and years of hard work and heaps of talent. There are hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women that are aspiring to become grand slam winners - yet they will never earn a penny. Bringing it to the discussion shows you don't treat this issues seriously.

What's more, showing a single example to proof a wide point is not an accepted scientific method. Here's another one for you: high tier escort earn much more per hour if they are women.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I've asked that before and never got an answer!!!!!

No, it is not. Content?!

professore wrote: »

This is totally based on my observations, and unscientific, but it seems to me that women in general just accept whatever "society" tells them to do and get on with it, whereas boys don't give a sh1t. In my opinion this is the nature of boys Vs girls.

Is this behaviour the cause or just the result?! I have already linked the BBC Video about how differently people treat girls and boys.

Here another piece of research: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/389

Common stereotypes associate high-level intellectual ability (brilliance, genius, etc.) with men more than women. These stereotypes discourage women’s pursuit of many prestigious careers; that is, women are underrepresented in fields whose members cherish brilliance (such as physics and philosophy). Here we show that these stereotypes are endorsed by, and influence the interests of, children as young as 6. Specifically, 6-year-old girls are less likely than boys to believe that members of their gender are “really, really smart.” Also at age 6, girls begin to avoid activities said to be for children who are “really, really smart.” These findings suggest that gendered notions of brilliance are acquired early and have an immediate effect on children’s interests.

There are huge efforts to get girls to play football and rugby and get into STEM and it has had very limited success.

It is a long term effort and I tend to disagree here.

Do women really think men are encouraged and helped at every step? Apart from the 1% they are criticised at every turn and have to make their own path.

No, they don't. But women are directly and indirectly discouraged. Every single step in their childhoods. When a boy likes to play in dirt, he is labelled as adventurous, active and curious. When a girl does exactly the same, she hears he is naughty, dirty etc.

Self-reflect and honestly tell me you are not prone to doing the same. I am and fight it every step I can see it.

To summarise my point: I agree that when comparing apples to apples, the gender pay gap is not as substantial as the feminist would like to paint it. It still exists, but is shrinking. However women don't aspire to equally high profile positions. There are many reasons for that and being genetically less capable is not really one of them. From gender stereotypes and biased education to social pressure on women to stay home and raise kids - which results in women having less experience and qualification - all influences the way women make decisions in their lives. It is essential to acknowledge that those issues exists and tackle all of them, so the next generations have more equal society. We cannot fix it for us, but we can make it better for our kids.

Keyzer

grogi wrote: »

But our societies need children - and it is only women that can give them.

Childless (selfish) women, like yourself, should be also additionally penalised (exp. by being additionally taxed) for not keeping the society going.

You have to be taking the piss right?

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

No, they don't. But women are directly and indirectly discouraged. Every single step in their childhoods. When a boy likes to play in dirt, he is labelled as adventurous, active and curious. When a girl does exactly the same, she hears he is naughty, dirty etc.

Thats the most ridiculous generalisation ive ever heard, maybe decades ago something similar happened but not today

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats the most ridiculous generalisation ive ever heard, maybe decades ago something similar happened but not today

Unfortunately it is happening today. It is not obvious and easy to spot, but it is. And that is the biggest challenge - to get rid of that unconscious bias.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Unfortunately it is happening today. It is not obvious, but it is.

Maybe it is still but again it is a seriously sweeping generalisation, as you are basically claiming it is happening to all girls which is an outrageous claim to make, example - I have two nieces, one likes playing in the dirt the other doesn't however neither is encouraged or discouraged from it one likes it the other doesn't, there you go equality of opportunity for playing in dirt.

Sweeping generalisations like that hurt your arguments more than anything

grogi

grogi wrote: »

Unfortunately it is happening today. It is not obvious and easy to spot, but it is. And that is the biggest challenge - to get rid of that unconscious bias.

A bias Encouraged by other females to exist. :rolleyes:

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

A bias Encouraged by other females to exist. :rolleyes:

Good point who is telling them not to play in the mud? Could it be their mother's by any chance? Somehow its still gonna be mens fault though :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

grogi

Deleted User wrote: »

A bias Encouraged by other females to exist. :rolleyes:

Yes. Being a female does not automatically make you omnipotent...

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

Good point who is telling them not to play in the mud? Could it be their mother's by any chance? Somehow its still gonna be mens fault though :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why are you constantly taking it to the men/women battle? It is not. Often women are equally, if not more, at fault at maintaining those stereotypes. Men have their sins and women have theirs.

Unfortunately the majority of them are to women's disadvantage.

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

Maybe it is still but again it is a seriously sweeping generalisation, as you are basically claiming it is happening to all girls which is an outrageous claim to make, example - I have two nieces, one likes playing in the dirt the other doesn't however neither is encouraged or discouraged from it one likes it the other doesn't, there you go equality of opportunity for playing in dirt.

Sweeping generalisations like that hurt your arguments more than anything

Of course it is a generalisation. I personally don't know you, your nieces etc to draw any conclusions about particular cases. It doesn't have to be dirt, I hope you understood the given example. It is a pattern that is constantly repeated.

When we talk about a society, about statistics etc - it is a generalisation by definition.

PeterParker957

Keyzer wrote: »

You have to be taking the piss right?

I'm trying to refrain from comment as it was I this was directed and and I reported it - but no, I believe them to be serious.

So much for my bodily autonomy, THERE'S your "Handmaid's Tale" equivalency.

grogi

grogi wrote: »

Yes. Being a female does not automatically make you omnipotent...

I assume you're using omnipotent regarding influence?

But since we're talking genders and not individuals... Females have far more influence over the development of children than males.

grogi

Deleted User wrote: »

I assume you're using omnipotent regarding influence?

But since we're talking genders and not individuals... Females have far more influence over the development of children than males.

Yes, they have. Doesn't mean they are bias free and will rise their kids in gender bias free environment. Women don't treat other women equally too.

PeterParker957

grogi wrote: »

Of course it is a generalisation. I personally don't know you, your nieces etc to draw any conclusions about particular cases.

When we talk about a society, about statistics etc - it is a generalisation by definition.

Okay then explain what I experienced just last week - I was part of a small group of women who were talking about the upcoming wedding of a colleague.

There's a woman who is in a relationship and is literally chomping at the bit to get married.

I suggested she ask him - after all, she wants to get married.

The silence that filled the room was terrifying. So I merely pointed out that if we want to be seen as equals why do we not behave as such ? Why turn into complete girlies just because a man asks us to get married ?

Why can we do propose ? Not just on 29 Feb, as a matter of routine.

You'd think I'd just come down off a spaceship the way they looked at me.

cantdecide

grogi wrote: »

Professional athletes are not paid for their time on the pitch or court.

Effectively, they are paid based on the revenue they can generate. Personally, I'd love to see a female F1 driver - there's no reason why women can't compete in those spheres.

Also, I hate sports. I dread going to job interviews because of the inevitable 'see the match?'.

grogi wrote: »

Is this behaviour the cause or just the result?! I have already linked the BBC Video about how differently people treat girls and boys.

Here another piece of research: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/389


It is a long term effort and I tend to disagree here.

But women are directly and indirectly discouraged. Every single step in their childhoods. When a boy likes to play in dirt, he is labelled as adventurous, active and curious. When a girl does exactly the same, she hears he is naughty, dirty etc.

Self-reflect and honestly tell me you are not prone to doing the same. I am and fight it every step I can see it.

This is the usual denial of biological chemical differences in the sexes - boys get into trouble, get dirty, play sports, act out and are generally less mature than girls of the same age generally more. Right? Well, why? Because we condition them? I was the kid that broke all my toys trying to figure out how they worked and still like nothing more than pulling my cars and bikes apart. Only in my 30s did I start to study for my business degree after being heavily discouraged from taking a trade, which I know I should have done. Meanwhile, my sister moved from an indulgent arts degree to a phd in IS.

Remember, from an early age, children have become almost exclusively surrounded by women in education within a generation or two (which is apparently grand altogether - no problems with that, right?). It's easy for young girls to be surrounded by smart women and if 6 year old girls and 6 year old boys see the world differently, you must consider there might just biological differences.

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

Unfortunately it is happening today. It is not obvious and easy to spot, but it is. And that is the biggest challenge - to get rid of that unconscious bias.

How can you get rid of unconscious bias if it's unconscious?

How would you know that you got rid of the bias? Surely only when men and women are paid exactly equally?

If a man and a woman both start work in a minimum wage job today are they being paid differently?

Something I wonder is that we take the workforce and divide it into "women" and "men" and then make declarations about differences in their pay.

What kind of differences would we see if we divided the workforce by race?

What about height? Or maybe eye colour?

Would any discrepancies be down to "unconscious bias"? How could we know if they are or they are not?

grogi

grogi wrote: »

Yes, they have. Doesn't mean they are bias free and will rise their kids in gender bias free environment. Women don't treat other women equally too.

Ok... so it's a social responsibility rather than a gender responsibility. Both males and females contribute to society, and we are both responsible for the outcomes.

Sorry.. For some reason, I had thought that you had assigned all responsibility over to men for how society, gender stereotypes etc have developed and given women a green card. I think I understand your stance better now.

PeterParker957

cantdecide wrote: »

Effectively, they are paid based on the revenue they can generate. Personally, I'd love to see a female F1 driver - there's no reason why women can't compete in those spheres.

Also, I hate sports. I dread going to job interviews because of the inevitable 'see the match?'.



This is the usual denial of biological chemical differences in the sexes - boys get into trouble, get dirty, play sports, act out and are generally less mature than girls of the same age generally more. Right? Well, why? Because we condition them? I was the kid that broke all my toys trying to figure out how they worked and still like nothing more than pulling my cars and bikes apart. Only in my 30s did I start to study for my business degree after being heavily discouraged from taking a trade, which I know I should have done. Meanwhile, my sister moved from an indulgent arts degree to a phd in IS.

Remember, from an early age, children have become almost exclusively surrounded by women in education within a generation or two (which is apparently grand altogether - no problems with that, right?). It's easy for young girls to be surrounded by smart women and if 6 year old girls and 6 year old boys see the world differently, you must consider there might just biological differences.

I bought my niece a leather jacket and jeans from Baby Gap. She never had it anywhere near her as "she's a girlie girl".

She was 6 weeks old. For all the parents knew she would be into Meccano, climbing trees and football!

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Of course it is a generalisation. I personally don't know you, your nieces etc to draw any conclusions about particular cases. It doesn't have to be dirt, I hope you understood the given example. It is a pattern that is constantly repeated.

When we talk about a society, about statistics etc - it is a generalisation by definition.

No when we talk about statistics and apply them to a population it is a statistical generalisation, however i don't believe you have statistics that can 100% prove such an unconscious bias exists therefore it is an just a factless generalisation based on your own unfounded opinions

Ohh btw i do of course believe unconscious bias exists its just impossible to prove 100% as its right there in the name .... unconscious

PeterParker957

VinLieger wrote: »

No when we talk about statistics and apply them to a population it is a statistical generalisation, however i don't believe you have statistics that can 100% prove such an unconscious bias exists therefore it is an just a factless generalisation based on your own unfounded opinions

Ohh btw i do of course believe unconscious bias exists its just impossible to prove 100% as its right there in the name .... unconscious

I know women who work on oil rigs and a man who is a midwife.

Feminists are the cause of the ills not the solution.

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

Ohh btw i do of course believe unconscious bias exists its just impossible to prove 100% as its right there in the name .... unconscious

Of course it can. If we confirm the existence of Higgs boson, we can confirm unconscious bias. It is not that we have a survey that asks 'do you have unconscious bias'

I've previously linked scientific research - it's a very good start to do own reading.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I bought my niece a leather jacket and jeans from Baby Gap. She never had it anywhere near her as "she's a girlie girl".

She was 6 weeks old. For all the parents knew she would be into Meccano, climbing trees and football!

And that's great. Having a role model as yourself will help her as well.

But again - those are incidental cases.

cantdecide

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd love a little equality of outcome myself, given my circumstances at the moment. I'd stand to gain a lot... or maybe I have agency and ambitions of my own.

GerryDerpy

cantdecide wrote: »

Effectively, they are paid based on the revenue they can generate. Personally, I'd love to see a female F1 driver - there's no reason why women can't compete in those spheres.

This is just wrong. F1 cars are physically demanding to drive.

Non-physical sports such as snooker, darts etc. demonstrate a fundamental difference between the sexes, that results in the elite levels being only men. Men have a flaw/ability to obsess over something. It takes over their mind. Hence the cliche that men can’t multi task.

Im talking generally of course. If you get a rare case of a woman that obsessed over snooker (bizarre thought), then she still has to have all the other factors (luck, facilities, social circle) go her way. The odds are stacked. It just won’t happen.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Of course it can. If we confirm the existence of Higgs boson, we can confirm unconscious bias. It is not that we have a survey that asks 'do you have unconscious bias'

I've previously linked scientific research - it's a very good start to do own reading.

LOL that a pretty stupid anaology but whatever.

Of course they don't have asking about unconscious bias but that's the very point im making because you can't have one like that its impossible to prove 100%.

It definitely exists but saying its the reason for specific thing's in society is just your get out of jail free card when all the other statistical data is pointing against you