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

grogi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why are you bringing disabled, Muslims and lesbian here? Do you think less of them?!

The truth is that the society as a whole is responsible of that discrimination, mainly because of the previously quoted stereotypes. I cannot say it frequently enough - girls are (warning, sweeping generalisation) brought up differently than boys. Some things are more girlish and some more boyish apparently... As a result those girls (warning, sweeping generations) turn into less ambitious women - and much less of them end up in senior management positions.

I am pretty sure that when it comes down to deciding who becomes next CEO, the choice is made fairly (it might be even a bit biased towards women), but the damage was done earlier. Much earlier... Latest research suggest that at 6 years old girls already think they are much less capable than boys do.

grogi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you believe that difference in preference is purely genetic?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are observing the results, not the causes.

Don't you think that it would look different if girls were not told to play with dolls (generalisation) and thus developing their maternity instincts, but run around with plastic guns, so they develop more cut-throat bitch attitude?

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

But we shouldn't also deny (like you and me don't deny climate change) that the stereotypes exist and they are influencing women and men. I am also not saying that women will be happier in the high paying professions. I don't know that.

Stereotypes do originate somewhere, but we must be very careful not to let them cloud our judgement in individual cases. If the girl wants to become a researcher in biology - nothing wrong with that. But this decision should be made because she wants to do that, not because there is a stereotype that suggest she would be better at it.

What can we really do to stop people from believing stereotypes? Most people who don't conform are just seen as not conforming and are just considered exceptions.

I know several people raising children right now who have little girls that are stereotypical and little boys that are stereotypical too. The next generation is already being brought into this system.

I see a lot of people pointing and yelling at the problem but I also see a society that seems to function quite well.

A girl who wants to become a researcher in biology can if she wants to BUT there is a kind of invisible guiding force that tries to convince her that she shouldn't. I get it but what kind of social engineering would we have to do to get rid of that invisible force?

What do we do with people who refuse to help dismantle stereotypes?

Say a stressed out single mother with 2 boys and 1 girl in tow comes bowling into Smyths and gruffly asks the staff "where are the girls toys". The staff try to explain you know we don't have boys and girls toys anymore it's just toys. The mother tells them she just wants a princess doll for her girl and 2 racing car toys for her boys. What can you do there?

Arrest her? Take the kids away? It sounds ludicrous but do you seriously think the kind of social engineering you seem to be suggesting would be possible without almost 100% participation from everyone?

What about women who genuinely want to find a rich and ambitious guy who can be the breadwinner while she raises the kids? They definitely exist and they definitely don't help you to dismantle stereotypes.

Probably there a millions of people out there in the world who conform to these stereotypes and if it's this "unconscious bias" that causes the pay gap then I'm wondering what you think is a realistic approach?

I know you could argue that surely doing something is better than doing nothing but what's the point in spending 10 or 20 years trying to close a pay gap that just won't go away?

Even if we say that men are maybe driven to earn more then we have to ask who is responsible for that drive? If a man has a wife and 2 daughters and he is barred from earning more than an unmarried woman on the same career path because "muh pay gap" then isn't that ultimately a net loss for women? Surely having that man earning more would be a net benefit to women?

Should we force women into the workplace?

How do we get rid of these stereotypes without crossing a line into punishing women who actually are fine with conforming to the stereotypical gender roles?

grogi

Saruhashi wrote: »

What can we really do to stop people from believing stereotypes? Most people who don't conform are just seen as not conforming and are just considered exceptions.

/.../

Should we force women into the workplace?

How do we get rid of these stereotypes without crossing a line into punishing women who actually are fine with conforming to the stereotypical gender roles?

Excellent questions - I really don't know. There are various ideas what to do, all with their flaws.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

The lowest one is adjusted gender gap. The one at top is unadjusted gender gap. And women still consistently earn less.

No the lowest one is a like for like comparison at it shows the real gender pay gap is negligible at .8% which is why no study ever uses that compariason as it shows how much of a myth the pay gap is

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

So you believe that difference in preference is purely genetic?

Does it matter if the difference is purely genetic or otherwise?

If women have a strong preference for careers with family friendly hours then we should allow them to pursue those careers.

It seems like you are proposing that we "fix" them at a young age so that the very concept of a family friendly career isn't even on their minds.

It feels too close to an idea that we can mind control kids into fixing statistics so that things will look better on paper.

I don't know what we would do with all the children who want, and are happy, to conform to traditional gender roles? Tell them that they can't?

Are we going to manipulate our daughters into playing with certain toys and wearing certain clothes and watching certain TV shows "because you're going to go into STEM some day"?

Saruhashi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah but boys get T-Shirts with "Superhero" printed on them and girls get T-Shirts with "Beautiful" printed on them so society is completely f*cked.

You see, we need to control how the children think.

If a girl thinks she wants to grow up to be a nurse and marry a rich prince then we need to get inside their minds and make them think that being an astronaut is so much cooler and who needs a prince anyway hawhawhaw.

They've been given too much freedom for too long and look where it's got us. We've got stereotypes all over the place. We've got a pay gap! Can you believe that?

We've got men motivated to earn by thinking they need money to get a good woman and we've got women thinking they are happy to work less and earn less if it means they can have more time with the kids. OUTRAGEOUS!

Fix their minds, I say! Make it so the thought doesn't even enter their little heads.

Breadwinner fathers and stay at home mothers? You can't build a successful society like that, no sir.

grogi

Saruhashi wrote: »

Does it matter if the difference is purely genetic or otherwise?

Yes, it matters. If it is genetic, be it. Can't really do much about it. It is like men are (generalisation) stronger - because of genetics.

But if the influence is external, it means that females are not treated the same way males are. And it is unfair.

Are we going to manipulate our daughters into playing with certain toys and wearing certain clothes and watching certain TV shows "because you're going to go into STEM some day"?

At one year old they don't care. So get them all of them, not only girlish or boyish toys. Every time you interact with the baby ask yourself - would you do exactly the same if the baby was opposite sex? If you can honestly answer that yes, you are not discriminating.

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

No the lowest one is a like for like comparison at it shows the real gender pay gap is negligible at .8% which is why no study ever uses that compariason as it shows how much of a myth the pay gap is

Are you going to invent your own terminology now?! There is no 'real' gender pay gap. Both - adjusted and unadjusted - are equally based in figures and equally real.

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

You are observing the results, not the causes.

Don't you think that it would look different if girls were not told to play with dolls (generalisation) and thus developing their maternity instincts, but run around with plastic guns, so they develop more cut-throat bitch attitude?

I think it would be a very different world, yes. Would it be better or worse? I don't know, probably about the same.

When you talk about the causes we have to really establish if the results are bad or not.

We are looking at the bottom line and saying "men earn more than women and it's bad". That paints this whole thing as a problem that needs to be fixed.

The way I would see it is that men and women have more freedom in western countries now than they did at any other point in history. If a woman wants to earn more she can but in general they don't.

Women might statistically spend more time raising the kids while their statistically male partners might statistically spend more time at work. We want to say "it shouldn't be this way" but nobody is really forcing anyone into anything.

So now we are left looking for invisible forces that maybe have more subtle influence. The thing is that a lot of our proposed solutions involve replacing "their" invisible force with "our" invisible force.

I don't know what I can do about my unconscious bias. Look for it. Analyse it. Dismantle it. Replace it with what?

If the pay gap is created and maintained by unconscious bias then it's fair to ask if the people who want to tear the whole thing down have some biases of their own?

meeeeh

Saruhashi wrote: »

Does it matter if the difference is purely genetic or otherwise?

If women have a strong preference for careers with family friendly hours then we should allow them to pursue those careers.

I grew up in a country with a gender gap of about 2%. The difference? Female employment is almost identical to male, women don't work reduced hours and wage differences in general are lower. But all this is enabled by good parental leave that can be shared and subsidised good quality childcare. At the same time country is also very high in some 'good to be child in' indexes. There are plenty of other negative issues but gender inequality is low. Funnily enough there is very little talk of women wanting to work family friendly hours.

This debate just assumes that women will more likely want to stay at home, that taking out 6 months or year for birth makes such a huge difference in job experience and so. Most of those things are just notions that can be changed with better family friendly policies and then we can look at gender pay gap and I am positive it will be lower. But don't tell me there are no gender based issues that are societal.

PeterParker957

I read a story in Take a Break the other week (I just buy it for the puzzles!!!) and a woman was pregnant. Bought loads of blue for the baby.

Baby comes, she's a girl.

First thing from the mother "we had to rush out an buy everything in pink, we didn't even have an outfit to take her home in".

Yes you did. The nonsense starts with women, sorry sistas but it does.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Are you going to invent your own terminology now?! There is no 'real' gender pay gap. Both - adjusted and unadjusted - are equally based in figures and equally real.

One is an earnings gap and one is a pay gap, using the word "adjusted" is a pathetic attempt to be able to keep using the word pay to try and trick people into thinking there is a real pay gap

grogi

Saruhashi wrote: »

When you talk about the causes we have to really establish if the results are bad or not.

That's a different discussion. I already stated that I don't know if it would be better. Right now their choice is (statistically) narrowed.

We are looking at the bottom line and saying "men earn more than women and it's bad". That paints this whole thing as a problem that needs to be fixed.

I want for men and women to be treated equally. I want them to be given equal opportunities. And that's not the case atm.

The way I would see it is that men and women have more freedom in western countries now than they did at any other point in history. If a woman wants to earn more she can but in general they don't.

I'm not worse, thus I am good enough!?

Women might statistically spend more time raising the kids while their statistically male partners might statistically spend more time at work. We want to say "it shouldn't be this way" but nobody is really forcing anyone into anything.

NOOOOOOOOOO!?! Yes, shouting intended! What idealistic buble are you in?!

I would love to have paternity benefit and stay with kids at home for couple of months. But I can't...

So now we are left looking for invisible forces that maybe have more subtle influence. The thing is that a lot of our proposed solutions involve replacing "their" invisible force with "our" invisible force.

I don't know what I can do about my unconscious bias. Look for it. Analyse it. Dismantle it. Replace it with what?

Actively counterbalance it?!

If the pay gap is created and maintained by unconscious bias then it's fair to ask if the people who want to tear the whole thing down have some biases of their own?

Absolutely.

PeterParker957

meeeeh wrote: »

This debate just assumes that women will more likely want to stay at home, that taking out 6 months or year for birth makes such a huge difference in job experience and so. Most of those things are just notions that can be changed with better family friendly policies and then we can look at gender pay gap and I am positive it will be lower. But don't tell me there are no gender based issues that are societal.

Looking at it from the other side, I work in education - there tends to be mad busy times built right into the year.

Several times over the last few years I've had colleagues announce they are pregnant "we're due in August!!" and I know that I'll need to dig out the Prozac prescription again as my workload will double, even getting in temps they won't know the routine.

The pattern goes thus then... back in with baby, coo coo coo, eventually returns to work etc.

Oh and insists on being exactly where I am pay and conditions wise!!!! No way!!!

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The nonsense starts with women, sorry sistas but it does.

That was already established, wasn't it? It is not battle of shifting fault at the other gender.

Saruhashi

grogi wrote: »

Yes, it matters. If it is genetic, be it. Can't really do much about it. It is like men are (generalisation) stronger - because of genetics.

But if the influence is external, it means that females are not treated the same way males are. And it is unfair.

If there are genetic differences then why wouldn't we expect to see that filter into all aspects of life?

You appear to be saying "men and women are not the same so treat them the same".

That doesn't make sense. Either they are the same or they are not?

If they are not the same then this would naturally have quite far reaching consequences for the species.

It's quite a bizarre contradiction. We want to acknowledge that men and women are different when it comes to certain things but at the same time we want them to be treated the same too.

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh and insists on being exactly where I am pay and conditions wise!!!! No way!!!

Why? If the job she does is equally good as yours?!

You should be enumerated fairly for your double efforts, but after that it is the results that matter.

PeterParker957

grogi wrote: »

Why? If the job she does is equally good as yours?!

You should be enumerated fairly for your double efforts, but after that it is the results that matter.

But it isn't though is it ?

I"m covering her work and my own and we are treated as though we have equal responsibilities, experience and skills.

We don't, I cover for her.

meeeeh

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Looking at it from the other side, I work in education - there tends to be mad busy times built right into the year.

Several times over the last few years I've had colleagues announce they are pregnant "we're due in August!!" and I know that I'll need to dig out the Prozac prescription again as my workload will double, even getting in temps they won't know the routine.

The pattern goes thus then... back in with baby, coo coo coo, eventually returns to work etc.

Oh and insists on being exactly where I am pay and conditions wise!!!! No way!!!

And we had men who were out for a year after cycling accidents, out for months with broken leg playing soccer, out with work related injuries... It can be annoying and costly but if you expect not to have more challenging periods at work then all I can say is lucky you don't work in private sector. Btw they can still be better at their job. We are unfortunate that more capable employees seem to be more injury prone. Should we pay them less than less able employees in the same position.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Why? If the job she does is equally good as yours?!

You should be enumerated fairly for your double efforts, but after that it is the results that matter.

So tenure coupled with always hitting your goals and getting results means nothing anymore?

PeterParker957

meeeeh wrote: »

And we had men who were out for a year after cycling accidents, out for months with broken leg playing soccer, out with work related injuries... It can be annoying and costly but if you expect not to have more challenging periods at work then all I can say is lucky you don't work in private sector. Btw they can still be better at their job. We are unfortunate that more capable employees seem to be more injury prone. Should we pay them less than less able employees in the same position.

I do work in the private sector! Not all Colleges are HEA led!

PeterParker957

VinLieger wrote: »

So tenure coupled with always hitting your goals and getting results means nothing anymore?

Not where I work!

grogi

Saruhashi wrote: »

It's quite a bizarre contradiction. We want to acknowledge that men and women are different when it comes to certain things but at the same time we want them to be treated the same too.

It's very simple - we want to treat them the same when those differences don't matter.

A male model of women swimming suits would do a horrible job. It wouldn't be a discrimination if he was dismissed from such position because of his gender.

I've read recently about a girl who was fired from a hairdresser position because she did not want to show her hair to the public (for religious reasons). She then sue for religious discrimination. I don't know how it ended, but in my opinion she wasn't discriminated - at that line of work your hair are important and work as a showcase/advertisement of the saloon.

So no - I don't believe everybody should be treated the same in every situation. But if the gender doesn't matter, both should be treated equally.

grogi

PeterParker957 wrote: »

But it isn't though is it ?

I"m covering her work and my own and we are treated as though we have equal responsibilities, experience and skills.

We don't, I cover for her.

And you should be fairly enumerated for the increased scope of your responsibilities. But once she is back, you're back to square one - aren't ye?

grogi

VinLieger wrote: »

So tenure coupled with always hitting your goals and getting results means nothing anymore?

Tenure shouldn't be worth much. People seem to get this weird entitlement that their salary should raise with the years they have worked.

Compensation should be increased when they became more valuable - not because they simply have longer experience.

BrokenArrows

Prune Tracy wrote: »

How "sisterly".

Always? I know it certainly isn't ok for me or any of my female colleagues or clients to do nothing. Some nice insults there too - men are the more reliable choice in the workplace... based on your prejudices like above.

Ok i may have exaggerated when i said that its always ok, but you cant deny there is a vast different in the perception of a woman who doesnt work and a man who doesnt work.

When i was talking about reliability i was considering the business impact of things like maternity leave.
If an employer hires a woman there is a risk that they will need to fund their maternity leave (which can mostly be claimed back from the government usually). However there is far more lost when someone takes maternity leave. The business loses the persons experience, and are legally unable to permanently replace them, hiring temporary staff is costly and it is time consuming to train new staff to do the job. There is also a risk that the woman on maternity leave will decide at the end that they dont want to return to work.

VinLieger

grogi wrote: »

Tenure shouldn't be worth much. People seem to get this weird entitlement that their salary should raise with the years they have worked.

Compensation should be increased when they became more valuable - not because they simply have longer experience.

Tenure should never be the only consideration but it always needs to be a factor, ignoring it completely will lead to a high turnover rate as theres very little incentive to employees staying put, and high turn over is not something any company want's

Permabear

This post has been deleted.