Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? READ POST 1

Sleepy wrote: »

While construction is lucrative during bubbles, it's by no means a high income profession for employees in normal market conditions (at least in terms of reported taxable income - much of many tradesmen's income will be "nixers"). It's also considered "low skilled" compared to many of the roles this demographic of women trend towards these days: medicine, biomed, law, finance, marketing etc.

There's also the matter of the over-representation of women in the public sector, where remuneration is higher than for equivalent positions in the private sector.

I'd be surprised if any such research paid any attention to the actual roles being performed by those they're comparing in this research however. It's not easy to find perfectly comparable roles (and the results of doing so might not give the researcher their desired outcome) so their involvement in the reality tends to be ignored in the research.

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school. Although I don't understand why solicitor is such a high paying job anymore, I hear of many students not being able to get apprenticeships due to so many applying.

red ears wrote: »

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school. Although I don't understand why solicitor is such a high paying job anymore, I hear of many students not being able to get apprenticeships due to so many applying.

So, if men are paid less on average ... it's because they haven't been upping their game, but need to.. but if women are paid less it's due to 'sexism'... gotcha.

[Deleted User]

red ears wrote: »

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school. Although I don't understand why solicitor is such a high paying job anymore, I hear of many students not being able to get apprenticeships due to so many applying.

Men are going after these high-paid positions. The problem is the public perception about the numbers of women in higher positions, and the risk of refusing promotions to women. The threat of sexual harrassment, sexism, etc all push employers to tip-toe around female applicants whereas there is no real risk in refusing men.

I don't think many of you realise how much employment laws and the threat of public attention have changed in recent years. There is still the very common perception that women are discriminated against in the workplace.

For example, in 13 years of working at management levels (and in over 50 companies) I've never seen a female employee to be asked to make tea/coffee for the other male employees at a similar level to them. I'm sure it does happen... but usually that job would go to a secretary or PA. And yet... there is the common outraged story of some woman who has been relegated to that position. I've heard such stories repeated in the media or by feminists campaigning.

There is genuine fear in employers regarding female rights and what a female employee can do to complain or apply legal damages to. It's a lot like a sexual harrassment case.. even if the case is proven to be false and the woman at fault, the reputation of the man is destroyed. This is the same for the company that gains a media report about being discriminatory towards women.

So, no, it's not simply a case of more men applying for higher-paid jobs (at least in business related fields).... in other fields/industries that might be the case but I know very little about those other industries.

Employment laws and discrimination laws need to be revised to be more equal... and the media really needs to be reined in.

Sleepy

I honestly think it's more to do with education and skewed perceptions of value than fear of being called sexist. More women than men are getting college educations in a society where a degree is a de-facto pre-requisite for a white collar job so more of them are starting their working lives in higher paying roles that have career trajectories.

In relation to the skewed perception of value, while I can see that some white collar /professional jobs (e.g. software development & implementation, engineering, medicine) can justify the high salaries they attract due to the rarity of the skillsets to carry out those roles or the level of training required to carry them out adequately, I believe there are many such roles attracting far higher salaries than the level of skill / training required to carry out the job adequately actually demands (Marketing, HR, PR, Recruitment, Admin). Why a HR executive (who in reality is just a glorified paper pusher) is considered to be more deserving of a high salary than the front line staff they're serving baffles me frankly.

Over my career I have seen female employees being asked to make the coffee on a number of occasions, tbh, but it was always in the context of them being the most junior in the room, not in the context of them being a woman. Though, given the level of entitlement we see in third wave feminists, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear one of them crying sexism in such a scenario.

givyjoe wrote: »

So, if men are paid less on average ... it's because they haven't been upping their game, but need to.. but if women are paid less it's due to 'sexism'... gotcha.

I'm referring to the higher paid careers like medicine and law that sleepy mentioned. Women are doing better leaving certs and going into these careers in larger numbers than men.

Where did i way women are paid less due to sexism?

red ears wrote: »

I'm referring to the higher paid careers like medicine and law that sleepy mentioned. Women are doing better leaving certs and going into these careers in larger numbers than men.

Where did i way women are paid less due to sexism?

You didn't offer up any comment on it, you just stated that the sole reason for the gap with men, was men 'not stepping up'. Reasonable to it infer from the comment you DID make.

Tell me then, why do you believe women are not represented as equally at senior management level in many professions, sexism?

givyjoe wrote: »

You didn't offer up any comment on it, you just stated that the sole reason for the gap with men, was men 'not stepping up'. Reasonable to it infer from the comment you DID make.

Tell me then, why do you believe women are not represented as equally at senior management level in many professions, sexism?

I said

red ears wrote: »

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school.

Thats pretty clear givyjoe i'm not sure why you struggled so much to understand it.

As for women not being represented at senior management, mainly it is because men worked longer hours and took less time off than the women on average and also most senior managers will be a little older and in that generation there was sexism at play. Not so much now so i'd expect to see the numbers even out over the years ahead.

red ears wrote: »

I said

Thats pretty clear givyjoe i'm not sure why you struggled so much to understand it.

As for women not being represented at senior management, mainly it is because men worked longer hours and took less time off than the women on average and also most senior managers will be a little older and in that generation there was sexism at play. Not so much now so i'd expect to see the numbers even out over the years ahead.

Yay, i love condescending posts.. it really helps get your point across. Keep up the good work.

It's still not really an explanation, taking girls doing better on average in the leaving cert, does not explain them earning more. College does come after you know, as does, well actual performance on the job and an ability to actually persuade your boss to actually give you more money.

An ability to memorize the sh*t out of course material on the leaving cert is no indicator of why this age bracket of women are earning more. My point being, "oh looks girls earn more now just because they do better in the leaving cert, nothing to see here/there's no problem, just work harder, move along" is a load of balls. This comes back to.. if men are now suffering a wage gap, it's something that needs to be addressed.

iptba

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd be surprised if any such research paid any attention to the actual roles being performed by those they're comparing in this research however. It's not easy to find perfectly comparable roles (and the results of doing so might not give the researcher their desired outcome) so their involvement in the reality tends to be ignored in the research.

Yes, there can be unmeasured variables that can be relevant. I remember somebody in the UK pointing out the jobs on the north sea oil rigs would have been classified in the same way has jobs on the mainland, even though it would have been more dangerous to work on the rigs and more inconvenient.

---
Warren Farrell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell#Why_Men_Earn_More

Why Men Earn More

By the start of the 21st century, Farrell felt he had re-examined every substantial adult male-female issue except the pay gap (i.e., that men as a group tend to earn more money than women as a group).[41] In Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can Do About It,[42] he documents 25 differences in men and women's work-life choices which, he argues, account for most or all of the pay gap more accurately than did claims of widespread discrimination against women. Common to each of men's choices was earning more money, while each of women's choices prioritized having a more-balanced life.[43] These 25 differences allowed Farrell to offer women 25 ways to higher pay—and accompany each with their possible trade-offs.[44] The trade-offs include working more hours and for more years; taking technical or more-hazardous jobs; relocating overseas or traveling overnight.[45] This led to considerable praise for Why Men Earn More as a career book for women.[46]

Some of Farrell's findings in Why Men Earn More include his analysis of census bureau data that never-married women without children earn 13% more than their male counterparts, and that the gender pay gap is largely about married men with children who earn more due to their assuming more workplace obligations. Themes woven throughout Why Men Earn More are the importance of assessing trade-offs; that "the road to high pay is a toll road;" the "Pay Paradox" (that "pay is about the power we forfeit to get the power of pay"); and, since men earn more, and women have more balanced lives, that men have more to learn from women than women do from men.[47]

Spouses and partners tend to benefit from the wages and income of their partners so in some ways it could be argued it is not as important as some issues where any differences don't transfer e.g. if you get injured or killed at work, it doesn't mean your spouse/partner gets injured or killed.

givyjoe wrote: »

Yay, i love condescending posts.. it really helps get your point across. Keep up the good work.
.

Your 'gotcha' post earlier was pretty condescending.

givyjoe wrote: »

An ability to memorize the sh*t out of course material on the leaving cert is no indicator of why this age bracket of women are earning more. My point being, "oh looks girls earn more now just because they do better in the leaving cert, nothing to see here/there's no problem, just work harder, move along" is a load of balls. This comes back to.. if men are now suffering a wage gap, it's something that needs to be addressed.

What do attribute the gap to for women with no children.

red ears wrote: »

What do attribute the gap to for women with no children.

Whats the statistics on this for woman without children?

Calhoun wrote: »

Whats the statistics on this for woman without children?

The chart in post 6029

Thanks for that, is that saying in Ireland woman get paid 25 cent less?

Wonder what other factors lead to this is there inherent sexism going on or is it a lifestyle choice?

Anecdotally i have worked with both unmotivated woman and men, people who just like sitting in entry level positions and not doing much past that.

iptba

Calhoun wrote: »

Thanks for that, is that saying in Ireland woman get paid 25 cent less?

Women without children in Ireland earn more than men.

iptba wrote: »

Women without children in Ireland earn more than men.

Ah OK well I can also see that as well anecdotally I have seen allot of guys acting the bollix in work while the women beside them put the head down.

So if I read this correctly what is the problem? A child is not a right it's a lifestyle choice.

Sleepy

You think feminists understand the concept of personal choices affecting outcomes?

These people wasted their opportunity to get a free third level education attending gender studies lectures... they're not capable of such logical reasoning.

What is it they are after so, do they want extra rights for woman inshrined in law that says we need an indexed measure of what they should be on?

gizmo555

Calhoun wrote: »

A child is not a right it's a lifestyle choice.

Of course, nobody is obliged to have children and I'd entirely respect anyone's decision not to be a parent.

On the other hand, society as whole would be up sh1t creek if everyone decided to remain childless. As such, it's more than a bit disingenuous to say to mothers "you chose to have a child, so put up with the consequences."

gizmo555 wrote: »

Of course, nobody is obliged to have children and I'd entirely respect anyone's decision not to be a parent.

On the other hand, society as whole would be up sh1t creek if everyone decided to remain childless. As such, it's more than a bit disingenuous to say to mothers "you chose to have a child, so put up with the consequences."

No actually its not disingenuous, we operate in a world and a country where being a pregnant woman comes with allot of perks. We should actually go the way of my colleagues in the US, my old boss went on maternity leave and was back within 6 weeks. I highly doubt being pregnant slowed down her career at all.

Why should a business have to consider societal problems? it can just move from one country to another as it is in a global market.

gizmo555

Calhoun wrote: »

No actually its not disingenuous, we operate in a world and a country where being a pregnant woman comes with allot of perks.

The world and the country need there to be pregnant women, so why wouldn't they get "perks"? Do you expect to live beyond retirement age? If there's nobody younger than you, who do you expect will still be in the workforce providing the goods and services you'll still need? How do you expect your pension will be paid?

Calhoun wrote: »

We should actually go the way of my colleagues in the US, my old boss went on maternity leave and was back within 6 weeks. I highly doubt being pregnant slowed down her career at all.

Glad she's not my mother . . .

Calhoun wrote: »

Why should a business have to consider societal problems? it can just move from one country to another as it is in a global market.

Societal problems are business problems. One of the main reasons businesses move to Ireland apart from our tax rates is our young, educated workforce. Guess what? They all have mothers. (And fathers, of course, but only mothers do the childbearing.)

gizmo555 wrote: »

The world and the country need there to be pregnant women, so why wouldn't they get "perks"? Do you expect to live beyond retirement age? If there's nobody younger than you, who do you expect will still be in the workforce providing the goods and services you'll still need? How do you expect your pension will be paid?

Glad she's not my mother . . .

Societal problems are business problems. One of the main reasons businesses move to Ireland apart from our tax rates is our young, educated workforce. Guess what? They all have mothers. (And fathers, of course, but only mothers do the childbearing.)

We need pregnant women so we pay them for maternity leave, that is that is the perk we get. I am not getting into an argument on the birthrates and pensions of the future.

Should we go further than what we already have in place and keep and promote a woman going through the maternity cycle to keep them on the same scale as men? i don't believe so.

Its common in the US for women to take short maternity leave, my old boss was an ex westpoint graduate so was well able for it.

Guess what? most FDI's i know of don't give a **** about societal problems, they will up and move if they don't like it. It's the reason so many are abandoning the interior of europe because they don't want to be stuck with a system where they cannot fire someone as they are on maternity leave for 4 years in a row.

The only mothers doing the child bearing is a societal issue, we have no current system really in place to stop this. However its still possible as my wife and I both work we have to thought to pay for the creche fees.

JRant

psinno wrote: »

The worlds a strange place. Look at the gender pay gap in Ireland , Italy and Sweden. Does that reflect how you hear people talk about gender in those countries?

http://www.activecharts.org/share/58860e383bd40245e2dd3c714910916f

There is a serious disconnect between the two alright.

red ears wrote: »

Your 'gotcha' post earlier was pretty condescending.

What do attribute the gap to for women with no children.

Simple, sexism! Isn't that how this works?! Or is it only when women are paid less..?!

silverharp

with the "pay gap" and Ireland you would need to break down into things like public sector v private sector or by industry. Ireland as a country is very service oriented and even in areas like multinational IT a lot of the activity is service oriented and back office. Then traditional areas like farming and fishing probably aren't that well paid. Then you have the gov stepping in and I assume the defence forces ,Guards, fire , ambulance etc are under pressure to hire more women because muh feminism

givyjoe wrote: »

Simple, sexism! Isn't that how this works?! Or is it only when women are paid less..?!

So you can't actually answer the question.