H. Clinton

[Tubey]

My view is that it's bad math(s).

Gender pay disparity has a lot of causes. Some of it is no doubt discrimination, some of it is no doubt not discrimination. Don't lump it together and call it all discrimination.

These affect workplace earnings: education, experience/time in workforce, career pursued, discrimination. Some of these can be affected by a woman's desire to parent her children, if she exits the workforce to do so. Or if she picks a career (teaching*) that more aptly fits her needs as a mother than other professions (lawyer/barrister*).

Comparing like to like (apples to apples or plumbers to plumbers) will provide interesting and useful data. Looking at average weekly earnings is neither interesting nor useful.

*in US 76% of public teachers are female, roughly 45% of lawyers are female (although many more females exit the labor force; lawyers make more than teachers, so on average men will make more than women when comparing all educators and lawyers. While discrimination may exist in these industries, the fact that average earnings is different does not suggest discrimination.

More from the 2nd linked article:

You're looking for the wrong thing from the stat. It's an indicator of a problem, not a statistical certainty of one.

I'll clarify - I'm not saying ALL of that 20% pay differential is due to gender discrimination, but what I am saying is that for such a large gap to exist then it is very indicative that a problem exists, because it's simply too large to be anything but a problem.

To draw a parallel, black Americans are far more likely to commit a multitude of crimes, despite being 12% of the population. A lot of that will be down to comparative living standards, education and so on, but there's also an element of racism in play that boosts those numbers. We'll never know for sure how big a factor racism is, as it isn't a defined stat, but you can use common sense and realise the stats are just too disproportionate to not be impacted by it.

And again, looking at common sense, you only have to look at the world around you to see that gender discrimination in employment is a massive thing. How many females do you see on tills in supermarkets compared to men? How many male MPs do you see compared to women? You talk about the legal profession - only 25% of judges are women. Under 13% are architects. Time and time again you'll see jobs that women could do as well as men, consistently overlooked in the profession, with the gap simply too big to ignore often the only common comparison on offer - gender.

 

[Tubey]

Men are more likely to be attacked in general. I.e just walking home at night.

And no I understand that and the people that do that are messed up. That doesn't prove that we live in a sexist society.

If we lived in a society that was sexist towards women breast cancer would not have as much funding (more people are diagnosed with prostate cancer), women would serve longer sentences (they serve less for the same crime), men would win more custody etc. Etc.

Society is not sexist towards women in the West in 2015. That doesn't mean there aren't some sexists, but that goes for men and women.

Nonsense. That entire post is ridiculous.

US stats:

• Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%).
• Males were most likely to be victims of drug- (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).

One stat is because of their gender, the other is because they put themselves in a dangerous situation. Which do you think is which?

 

[SerenityNigh]

Time and time again you'll see jobs that women could do as well as men, consistently overlooked in the profession, with the gap simply too big to ignore often the only common comparison on offer - gender.

We agree here, but where you see discrimination I see choice. In some professions, women are being prevented from achieving what men achieve, but in most cases, women are choosing to exit the workforce to parent or choosing careers that are more suitable for parenting to statistically significant effect.

While discrimination exists, I think that's both the simplest and best explanation for a difference in average earnings between all women and men.

 

[roydo]

And again, looking at common sense, you only have to look at the world around you to see that gender discrimination in employment is a massive thing. How many females do you see on tills in supermarkets compared to men? How many male MPs do you see compared to women? You talk about the legal profession - only 25% of judges are women. Under 13% are architects. Time and time again you'll see jobs that women could do as well as men, consistently overlooked in the profession, with the gap simply too big to ignore often the only common comparison on offer - gender.

Maybe more men are keener on being an MP or a Lawyer? Maybe the "natural order" with men evolutionally being the hunter/gatherer and the women being the caring nest builder is still a factor?

Not saying it is right or wrong, but I dont see discrimination against women in our society at all.

I see a natural difference between males and females.

 

[Tubey]

We agree here, but where you see discrimination I see choice. In some professions, women are being prevented from achieving what men achieve, but in most cases, women are choosing to exit the workforce to parent or choosing careers that are more suitable for parenting to statistically significant effect.

While discrimination exists, I think that's both the simplest and best explanation for a difference in average earnings between all women and men.

I've already said that's obviously a factor, but not a 20p in every £1 factor. It's naive in the extreme to think that is the be all, end all of the discussion - it's merely a factor.

Yet even that factor is rooted in sexism. Women leave the workforce to have children because many careers simply offer absolutely no flexibility at all for mothers to continue with their career. So rather than women leaving the workforce; the workforce is leaving them.

 

[Tubey]

Maybe more men are keener on being an MP or a Lawyer? Maybe the "natural order" with men evolutionally being the hunter/gatherer and the women being the caring nest builder is still a factor?

Not saying it is right or wrong, but I dont see discrimination against women in our society at all.

I see a natural difference between males and females.

If that were the case, women wouldn't be entering these professions to leave in the first place. 55% of all university admissions are female - the appetite for a career is alive and well; the facilitation of that career is not.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I see a natural difference between males and females.

*agrees, nods wisely and shouts "Vive la difference"

Nice to see Tubey on form here. Newbies shold be taking notes

 

[SerenityNigh]

I've already said that's obviously a factor, but not a 20p in every £1 factor. It's naive in the extreme to think that is the be all, end all of the discussion - it's merely a factor.

Yet even that factor is rooted in sexism. Women leave the workforce to have children because many careers simply offer absolutely no flexibility at all for mothers to continue with their career. So rather than women leaving the workforce; the workforce is leaving them.

Very good point, but then let's change the workforce and stop quibbling over something as stupid and statistically meaningless as "average weekly earnings." Prices meet demand and supply, not the other way around.

On the first point, if you want wage equality, then women actually have to be paid more than men to make up for their exiting the workforce. I think you're underestimating how large this impact can be. As a personal example, the lovely Mrs Nigh is more than qualified enough to do the job her male peers do, but as she has no plans to replace her MFA with a PhD (and so will not be eligible for tenure), and will likely be out of the workforce for 10 years raising kids while her male peers continue in their profession, her lack of experience (-10 years) and educational achievement (no PhD) will limit her future earnings, even if it does not affect her job competency.

That's may be wrong, and it may be systemically deficient, but it's not discrimination as she chose to exit the workforce.

 

[roydo]

If that were the case, women wouldn't be entering these professions to leave in the first place. 55% of all university admissions are female - the appetite for a career is alive and well; the facilitation of that career is not.

I would certainly agree that a woman taking a career break to have and raise children is a career disadvantage. I just dont call it discrimination. Because if a man decided to do the raising, as more and more seem to be doing, the same career disadvantage would certainly apply.

 

[Tubey]

Very good point, but then let's change the workforce and stop quibbling over something as stupid and statistically meaningless as "average weekly earnings." Prices meet demand and supply, not the other way around.

On the first point, if you want wage equality, then women actually have to be paid more than men to make up for their exiting the workforce. I think you're underestimating how large this impact can be. As a personal example, the lovely Mrs Nigh is more than qualified enough to do the job her male peers do, but as she has no plans to replace her MFA with a PhD (and so will not be eligible for tenure), and will likely be out of the workforce for 10 years raising kids while her male peers continue in their profession, her lack of experience (-10 years) and educational achievement (no PhD) will limit her future earnings, even if it does not affect her job competency.

That's may be wrong, and it may be systemically deficient, but it's not discrimination as she chose to exit the workforce.

Not at all - they have to be accommodated to not leave the workforce, which makes economic, practical sense.

I'm not sure how anyone can read the below and not see a very glaring problem.

Unemployment among women rose by almost 20% between 2009 and 2012, compared with 0.32% among men. In the workplace, women on maternity leave find themselves made redundant before worse-performing male colleagues. Childcare costs are keeping others at home or in part-time work, where perhaps one of the most telling statistics is that 54% of women are employed below their potential. In FTSE 100 companies, 17% of directors are female and women are outnumbered four to one in parliament and five to one in the cabinet.

Pay and pension divides remain. The pay gap between men and women in full-time work is 10%, in part-time work 34%.

 

[SerenityNigh]

*agrees, nods wisely and shouts "Vive la difference"

Nice to see Tubey on form here. Newbies shold be taking notes

@Tubey for Mod

also, vive la difference

 

[Prevenger17]

I think women are pretty smart for a subspecies, but if we all lined up and had a big fight, who would win? That's right, MEN.

 

[roydo]

I think women are pretty smart for a subspecies, but if we all lined up and had a big fight, who would win? That's right, MEN.

Chances are men would start the fight though. Which is not a nice trait we have to be honest.

Assuming you are a bloke btw.

 

[Tubey]

I would certainly agree that a woman taking a career break to have and raise children is a career disadvantage. I just dont call it discrimination. Because if a man decided to do the raising, as more and more seem to be doing, the same career disadvantage would certainly apply.

An economic downturn occurred in 2009/10, and by 2012 there was a 20% increase in unemployment amongst women and 0.32% in men.

Am I seriously meant to believe one in five women decided to go and bugger off and have a kid in those two years?

Come on, it's clear discrimination - the women were jettisoned first almost across the board, simply because of their gender as there's a perceived reliability issue in keeping them on. Instead of offering flexible working and child care initiatives for both genders, employers decided instead to simply get rid.

 

[Prevenger17]

Chances are men would start the fight though. Which is not a nice trait we have to be honest.

Assuming you are a bloke btw.

CUCKIN', CLUYNIN', MAKINS BUYBEES, THAYT'S ALL DEM WEEMIN ARE GUD FOUR