Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[Chief]

So now its bias against women that gets them paid less for doing the same job?

Ummm... isn't that part of what we're talking about?

The studies on women and negotiating are a real clue here.

But in order to argue theres a very real pay gap issue between men and women which needs to be solved, requires demonstrable examples of pay discrepancies between men and women doing the EXACT SAME JOB FOR THE EXACT SAME HOURS without that your statistic are on par with articles about hair colour and wages. it might look good on buzzfeed but its useless.

Nobody is saying that the pay gap is only to do with exact job, exact hours, across all industries.

The issues are broader than that. You even mention issues with women reaching upper management.

Why? Lots of reasons. A small amount of this seems to be simple sexism, even where none is intended.

Examining our biases helps us become aware of them, even if we cannot control them all the time. Using things like blind hiring or at least blind resume evaluation help in this area. They can't be the panacea, but can be the B12 injection to get us on the road to a fairer system.

We talk about women "choosing" to take career breaks, be the primary child carer and so on. But for how many is this choice made for them through, say, societal pressure?

There was at least one study showing men are more likely to cheat if their wife is more successful than them by a significant margin. I think women are more likely to cheat on their marriage when they are significantly more successful than their spouse? I can't recall the details.

The point is there are a range of issues that, if we are to have a good discussion, should be thrown back and forth. Demanding the discussion circle around one issue - exact pay, exact hours - is limiting and will be fruitless.

 

[fleabitten]

I disagree with this.
There is a gender pay gap.

I think you mean more that a gender pay gap due to sexism is almost entirely smoke and mirrors?

Sure. I usually hear "pay gap" used to imply sexism, so that's what I meant. I say "almost" because I wouldn't be surprised if there was still a small difference that could only be explained by sexism. But I would be surprised if that difference wasn't already closing rapidly.

Any company that is guilty of gender-based discrimination should be prosecuted, and/or any legal loopholes that allow discrimination closed, but I think for the most part, we've already got it covered both legally and in terms of social expectations.

 

[Ruck Machine]

No. Not likely to either - I already have a backlog.

Suggest you add to your back log then. Well worth it especially if you have daughters.

 

[Chief]

Sure. I usually hear "pay gap" used to imply sexism, so that's what I meant. I say "almost" because I wouldn't be surprised if there was still a small difference that could only be explained by sexism. But I would be surprised if that difference wasn't already closing rapidly.

And quite frankly "sexism" and "racism" are short hands that have broad meaning.

When we say, for example, a "racist legal system" we don't mean all judges hate black people. We mean that the system has legacies from less enlightened times, and can acquire new biases based on political issues. Whether you agree that it is actually the case, that is what the term means.

When we talk about sexism in industries or in the superannuation system or in the legal system we look at the legacies of a system designed to pay a man to keep a wife and two kids, or a time when brawn was more relevant and people from that time are now managers and see new employees through a prism of whether they could lift a heavy box or have ever lifted a heavy box - if they haven't then how can they understand "my" business?

It just isn't realistic to deny these things exist. It also isn't helpful to get defensive about a word like "sexism" - it isn't implying that all men are sexist pigs.

But then, you get academics using precise terms like "gender bias" and people get upset that these damned hairy femo academics are trying to hide their hatred of men behind jargon.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Ummm... isn't that part of what we're talking about?

The studies on women and negotiating are a real clue here.


Nobody is saying that the pay gap is only to do with exact job, exact hours, across all industries.

The issues are broader than that. You even mention issues with women reaching upper management.

Why? Lots of reasons. A small amount of this seems to be simple sexism, even where none is intended.

Examining our biases helps us become aware of them, even if we cannot control them all the time. Using things like blind hiring or at least blind resume evaluation help in this area. They can't be the panacea, but can be the B12 injection to get us on the road to a fairer system.

We talk about women "choosing" to take career breaks, be the primary child carer and so on. But for how many is this choice made for them through, say, societal pressure?

There was at least one study showing men are more likely to cheat if their wife is more successful than them by a significant margin. I think women are more likely to cheat on their marriage when they are significantly more successful than their spouse? I can't recall the details.

The point is there are a range of issues that, if we are to have a good discussion, should be thrown back and forth. Demanding the discussion circle around one issue - exact pay, exact hours - is limiting and will be fruitless.

My missus made it to the last 3 for a state management role about a year ago.
She pulled out of the final stage of the recruitment process because she believed that the day to day dealings would be too blokey and that she couldn't be arsed in all the golf days she have to take part in.
So basically,many capable women pull out of roles based on the fact that the boys club mentality that exists in many industries,is not what some 'quality' women want from their professional careers.

 

[Chief]

So basically,many capable women pull out of roles based on the fact that the boys club mentality that exists in many industries,is not what some 'quality' women want from their professional careers.

And men's clubs where business was traditionally done, but exclude women. Point that out and we get... "But ... Fernwood gyms won't let men in!"

And here is where the term "choice" is a bit of a misnomer. Sure you can choose not to take the next job up the ladder, but how much of that choice is basically out of your hands?

 

[fleabitten]

And quite frankly "sexism" and "racism" are short hands that have broad meaning.

When we say, for example, a "racist legal system" we don't mean all judges hate black people. We mean that the system has legacies from less enlightened times, and can acquire new biases based on political issues. Whether you agree that it is actually the case, that is what the term means.

What term are you referring to? Sexism? I think you're saying that sexism is a term that covers more than just sexism?

When we talk about sexism in industries or in the superannuation system or in the legal system we look at the legacies of a system designed to pay a man to keep a wife and two kids, or a time when brawn was more relevant and people from that time are now managers and see new employees through a prism of whether they could lift a heavy box or have ever lifted a heavy box - if they haven't then how can they understand "my" business?

It's not sexism to want someone who has lifted heavy boxes to be in charge of the people who have to lift heavy boxes. Managers that aren't capable of doing the job of the people they are managing are the worst.

It just isn't realistic to deny these things exist. It also isn't helpful to get defensive about a word like "sexism" - it isn't implying that all men are sexist pigs.

I'm not denying sexism exists. I'm saying that any gender pay gap that can be attributed to it is much, much smaller than the figures we are constantly told and that small gap has been rapidly closing and continues to close.

 

[chelseacarlton]

And men's clubs where business was traditionally done, but exclude women. Point that out and we get... "But ... Fernwood gyms won't let men in!"

And here is where the term "choice" is a bit of a misnomer. Sure you can choose not to take the next job up the ladder, but how much of that choice is basically out of your hands?

A friend of ours,a very successful woman in her own right in business.
Now running her own successful business,said to us recently,when she was chasing the corporate ladder to the top dream,that many applicants were chosen on their bigness.
It was her assertion that business blokes love other big burly blokey blokes to bloke around with in the T**ty bars and golf courses with,regardless of education or talent.
Blue fish yellow fish.

 

[Chief]

What term are you referring to? Sexism? I think you're saying that sexism is a term that covers more than just sexism?



It's not sexism to want someone who has lifted heavy boxes to be in charge of the people who have to lift heavy boxes. Managers that aren't capable of doing the job of the people they are managing are the worst.



I'm not denying sexism exists. I'm saying that any gender pay gap that can be attributed to it is much, much smaller than the figures we are constantly told and that small gap has been rapidly closing and continues to close.

I was simply talking about the terms themselves and how people can get upset and think of them as personal attacks when they are used in relation to general conditions and unconscious bias.

 

[fleabitten]

I was simply talking about the terms themselves and how people can get upset and think of them as personal attacks when they are used in relation to general conditions and unconscious bias.

Okay. Well, I don't think I'm doing that.

 

[Chief]

A friend of ours,a very successful woman in her own right in business.
Now running her own successful business,said to us recently,when she was chasing the corporate ladder to the top dream,that many applicants were chosen on their bigness.
It was her assertion that business blokes love other big burly blokey blokes to bloke around with in the T**ty bars and golf courses with,regardless of education or talent.
Blue fish yellow fish.

And I think that "education or talent" can be a bit of a broad band. You might be more educated or talented but maybe the position as it stands and the group you would be joining can survive the dumber guy, but at least he's a guy.

 

[jatz14]

What term are you referring to? Sexism? I think you're saying that sexism is a term that covers more than just sexism?



It's not sexism to want someone who has lifted heavy boxes to be in charge of the people who have to lift heavy boxes. Managers that aren't capable of doing the job of the people they are managing are the worst.



I'm not denying sexism exists. I'm saying that any gender pay gap that can be attributed to it is much, much smaller than the figures we are constantly told and that small gap has been rapidly closing and continues to close.

I think the point with heavy boxes is that men employed to lift heavy boxes, become managers who prefer employees who can lift heavy boxes, even if the job now just involves pushing buttons. They regard the women they do not hire as being not up to it, and would regard the suggestion of bias as pc bullshit.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

An interesting thought.

But I don't think that that is the assumption that the debate starts from.

In fact, in some areas I don't think the amount worked is really taken into consideration. Considering some of the stats and arguments come from comparing female part time work to male full time work, and averaging the salary.

The very basis for the discussion is that the nature of the pay gap needs to be understood and fixed, and every discussion of fixing it involves raising womens average pay to achieve parity with men.

If you have 2 men, 1 is obsessed with material success, works huge hours, has no social life, and a distant uninvolved relationship with his family. His one joy is counting his cash.

Second guy works modest hours, avoids Jobs that involve sacrificing undue family hours, has a wide social network and close relationship with his family. He enjoys his life a great deal.

First guy had a big house a couple of fancy cars, high powered career. Second guy has a modest house, second hand car, and never gets below the bottom rung of middle management.

Society would consider the first guy a relative success, and the second guy a relative failure, but that's a view that does not include 'social' factors as a measure of success.

Given women already give up a degree of financial security and success in the interests of the family, it is hard to argue against the empirical observation that women 'on average' would identify with the second guys lifestyle more than men would 'on average'.

So if you have one cohort of the workforce who view career and pay as the single most important factor in the decisions they make regarding work, and a second cohort who view it as merely 1 amongst a number of important factors, which cohort achieves the higher average wage.

Does this greater average wage equate to greater success?

A study I would like to see done is the comparison of average pay between a group of women, and a group of men of like lifestyle and work life balance viewpoints. ie, Does a group of men that view their life goals the way women 'on average' view them have higher pay than women (childbirth and suchlike taken into account).



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[CM86]

The very basis for the discussion is that the nature of the pay gap needs to be understood and fixed, and every discussion of fixing it involves raising womens average pay to achieve parity with men.

If you have 2 men, 1 is obsessed with material success, works huge hours, has no social life, and a distant uninvolved relationship with his family. His one joy is counting his cash.

Second guy works modest hours, avoids Jobs that involve sacrificing undue family hours, has a wide social network and close relationship with his family. He enjoys his life a great deal.

First guy had a big house a couple of fancy cars, high powered career. Second guy has a modest house, second hand car, and never gets below the bottom rung of middle management.

Society would consider the first guy a relative success, and the second guy a relative failure, but that's a view that does not include 'social' factors as a measure of success.

Given women already give up a degree of financial security and success in the interests of the family, it is hard to argue against the empirical observation that women 'on average' would identify with the second guys lifestyle more than men would 'on average'.

So if you have one cohort of the workforce who view career and pay as the single most important factor in the decisions they make regarding work, and a second cohort who view it as merely 1 amongst a number of important factors, which cohort achieves the higher average wage.

Does this greater average wage equate to greater success?

A study I would like to see done is the comparison of average pay between a group of women, and a group of men of like lifestyle and work life balance viewpoints. ie, Does a group of men that view their life goals the way women 'on average' view them have higher pay than women (childbirth and suchlike taken into account).



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

OK, I don't agree with the point, but I understand it (I think.)

I'd say as soon as you did a study that way, you'd instantly find a disparity.
As soon as a man or a woman puts a focus on having a family, the woman will be at a disadvantage in terms of work goals.
The woman has no choice and must be the one to be pregnant and give birth, the man cannot choose to do this.


Pregnancy is one of the factors that is used to explain away the gender pay gap.

I think we should have paid paternity leave. So the (in my example) heterosexual couple could decide who stays home and who goes to work after the baby is born. But they can't make that choice during the pregnancy or for the birth.



Long and short of it is, I understand your point, but I don't think it's that connected or solid in terms of what makes the gender pay gap.
It could be part of it, but it's definitely not the underlying factor.

 

[chelseacarlton]

And I think that "education or talent" can be a bit of a broad band. You might be more educated or talented but maybe the position as it stands and the group you would be joining can survive the dumber guy, but at least he's a guy.

I don't think it's unusual.
It's local it's universal.
It's hard to bitch about how much of a pain in the arse my wife is when talking to another woman.
Same goes when trying to being a blokey bloke.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Ummm... isn't that part of what we're talking about?

The studies on women and negotiating are a real clue here.


Nobody is saying that the pay gap is only to do with exact job, exact hours, across all industries.

The issues are broader than that. You even mention issues with women reaching upper management.

Why? Lots of reasons. A small amount of this seems to be simple sexism, even where none is intended.

Examining our biases helps us become aware of them, even if we cannot control them all the time. Using things like blind hiring or at least blind resume evaluation help in this area. They can't be the panacea, but can be the B12 injection to get us on the road to a fairer system.

We talk about women "choosing" to take career breaks, be the primary child carer and so on. But for how many is this choice made for them through, say, societal pressure?

There was at least one study showing men are more likely to cheat if their wife is more successful than them by a significant margin. I think women are more likely to cheat on their marriage when they are significantly more successful than their spouse? I can't recall the details.

The point is there are a range of issues that, if we are to have a good discussion, should be thrown back and forth. Demanding the discussion circle around one issue - exact pay, exact hours - is limiting and will be fruitless.

so first up your conflating very different issues together in order to frame a false narrative.
a lack of equal opportunity is not the same thing as woman choosing to take time off. It is wrong to conflate the two together and it only harms women that a fighting very real problems relating to equal opportunity.

its not societies problem that women take time off work, its not societies problem that spouses cheat. this blaming society for everything that doesn't go perfectly for a person is bullshit.

people in relationships with a large power gap between each person have a marked increase in relationship problems, this is not limited to pay and it certainly isn't limited to relationships where the women "wear the pants" the reasons for this are extremely personal and usual revolve around one or or both persons feeling unloved and disconnected from the other, this is not societies problem. this is dumb campaigners marrying other dumb campaigners.

If we want to actually deal with the issue of a lack of opportunities for women at the top end of jobs we need to separate it from blatantly bullshit statements like "societal expectations" * what society expects, we routinely chew out high school students for caving into peer pressure and yet somehow a grown adult can't be expected to make their own decisions?

the vast majority of arguments brought up around the pay gap issue are bullshit with a simple solutions.
don't want to take time off work to have a kid? don't have one.
worried about spouses cheating? understand that successful long term relationships are extremely rare, 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce, 1 in 2 relationships end in separation and there's all the so called "loveless" relationships that don't break up.

 

[Chief]

so first up your conflating very different issues together in order to frame a false narrative.
a lack of equal opportunity is not the same thing as woman choosing to take time off. It is wrong to conflate the two together and it only harms women that a fighting very real problems relating to equal opportunity.

its not societies problem that women take time off work, its not societies problem that spouses cheat. this blaming society for everything that doesn't go perfectly for a person is bullshit.

Societal attitudes - including religious, traditional, conservative etc - definitely have an impact on sexism in the work place. They definitely have an impact on how successful women are perceived - even in their own household.

This is what feminism has been about for decades and decades: changing that attitude that women should stay in the kitchen, can't cut it in upper management, shouldn't speak up about their pay, can't do this, can't do that.

You seem to be viewing this through an entirely personal lens. Good on you if you are a great boss and don't have a shred of bias in your hiring and promotion processes.

You also seem to think that everyone, everywhere MUST be entirely rational in their decision making and if there are areas where they aren't, * em I'm all right Jack.

That type of society is a barren, uninviting place.

 

[BORK]

My missus made it to the last 3 for a state management role about a year ago.
She pulled out of the final stage of the recruitment process because she believed that the day to day dealings would be too blokey and that she couldn't be arsed in all the golf days she have to take part in.
So basically,many capable women pull out of roles based on the fact that the boys club mentality that exists in many industries,is not what some 'quality' women want from their professional careers.

Being capable without the requisite motivation for a role with that level of responsibility would result in being a poor choice for candidacy anyway. Quite simply she did not want it bad enough and the organisation would be better off without her in that position if that is the reason she pulled out. I am not denying there are issues in the workplace but that sounds like your partner is using external forces to excuse her failure to follow through when internally she was not passionate enough about getting the position.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Being capable without the requisite motivation for a role with that level of responsibility would result in being a poor choice for candidacy anyway. Quite simply she did not want it bad enough and the organisation would be better off without her in that position if that is the reason she pulled out. I am not denying there are issues in the workplace but that sounds like your partner is using external forces to excuse her failure to follow through when internally she was not passionate enough about getting the position.

She actually hits a pretty good 5 iron.

 

[BORK]

I really would like to see some research comparing women with children, women without children and men. I believe that most of the unexplained gap would be targeted toward women with children.

It is known which gender is the majority carer a child's early years. There are stereotypes that employers may have on particular genders once they become parents. There will be some truth to the stereotype in practice but the problem emerges when people face undeserved discrimination because of those stereotypes.

When a married man becomes a father the chances are the mothers income reduces and he may work harder to compensate for that and take his job more seriously because of the extra responsibilities in life. An employer perception of a father may be "this guy has mouths to feed and he will work his ass off for me".

Quite simply. When a man becomes a parent an employer may perceive him as being MORE dedicated to his job and/or more reliable because of the extra responsibilities in his life.

When a woman becomes a parent in most instances she will have time off work. When she returns to work she will more likely be the parent to take days off when the child is sick than the father would. Being a majority carer(in reality it is the mother more often than the father) she may require more flexible hours on average than a father would.

Quite simply. When a woman becomes a parent an employer may perceive her as being LESS dedicated to her job and/or less reliable because of the extra responsibilities in her life.


The reality of split of genders in caring for children creates a different perception among employers of the average father compared to the average mother and their reliability and performance in the workforce. This can result in undeserved discrimination against mothers in the course of their employment.

Childless women do not face the same unique barriers in the workforce as women with children.

 

[BORK]

She actually hits a pretty good 5 iron.

Makes the decision to not follow through more perplexing. Unless there is a case of this.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Makes the decision to not follow through more perplexing. Unless there is a case of this.

Her position was,I wish not to be surrounded by loud obnoxious morons that were chosen because they were so.

 

[Chief]

I don't think it's unusual.
It's local it's universal.
It's hard to bitch about how much of a pain in the arse my wife is when talking to another woman.
Same goes when trying to being a blokey bloke.

Years ago at the place I worked...

The sales team put together some talks, hosted a breakfast etc at an interstate conference.

The male members of the sales team went down to the conference. The female member who had put together the breakfast event stayed at the office.

The sales guys got so hammered they couldn't make the breakfast and the CEO had to stumble in and give a brief speech and then sit there hung over.

Laugh? It was a legendary event in company history! They sent back a picture of one of the guys crashed out on his bed. It was a hoot, apparently.

Meanwhile the female sales person was absolutely furious but treated with roll-eyes and "settle petal" type responses you'd never hear a man give to another man.

She doesn't work there any more.

I really would like to see some research comparing women with children, women without children and men. I believe the most of the unexplained gap would be targeted toward women with children.

It is known which gender is the majority carer a child's early years. There are stereotypes that employers may have on particular genders once they become parents. There will be some truth to the stereotype in practice but the problem emerges when people face undeserved discrimination because of those stereotypes.
...

Yes we know mothers are discriminated against in the course of their employment.

What is your point?

Childless women have it easy? Does this relate to some religious conviction that women should have the babbies and let the manfolk go out to work?

 

[BORK]

Her position was,I wish not to be surrounded by loud obnoxious morons that were chosen because they were so.

Was inferring the being good at golf but maybe not enjoying golf. Maybe a branch swing would be good for her career? May I ask what industry she is in? Do not have to answer.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Was inferring the being good at golf but maybe not enjoying golf. Maybe a branch swing would be good for her career? May I ask what industry she is in? Do not have to answer.

Refer to the chiefs post above.
Although I'll have you know my wife would have been one of those at the conference with a mad hangover.
She could drink half of Ireland under the table and talk the rest to sleep whilst doing so.