- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,808
- 15,039
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I literally answered your question... And then expressed exasperation that you needed it explained...Is that a rhetorical question?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
I literally answered your question... And then expressed exasperation that you needed it explained...Is that a rhetorical question?
Why are males under-represented in traditionally female roles?I literally answered your question... And then expressed exasperation that you needed it explained...
Because they are underpaid, and considered feminine...Why are males under-represented in traditionally female roles?
I agree is largely subjective, and generally females are less comfortable negotiating better pay. Does the data explain why that is?1) Role, apologies for the confusion.
2) The “why” is largely subjective but what is generally accepted is that males are more comfortable negotiating for more money where females generally take what is on offer. This is obviously irrelevant for many roles on enterprise agreements but is the case broadly for those that aren’t.
I agree is largely subjective, and generally females are less comfortable negotiating better pay. Does the data explain why that is?
I guess my point is that we have a very broad answer to a very nuanced problem. 'Blokes get more than women '. And that immediately dismisses the detail.
Ffs.
If you think my questions about your personal view of how women are treated in your industry is leading... doesn't that cement my point?!?
If you refuse to even attempt to engage with the thought process as to why women are less likely to be part of (or succeed in) a 'male-only' male dominant role, doesn't that starkly point out the reason for the disparity?!?
If you can't even engage with this as an anonymous poster online, on a Footy forum. What hope is there in the industry?!??
Ffs.
If you think my questions about your personal view of how women are treated in your industry is leading... doesn't that cement my point?!?
If you refuse to even attempt to engage with the thought process as to why women are less likely to be part of (or succeed in) a 'male-only' male dominant role, doesn't that starkly point out the reason for the disparity?!?
If you can't even engage with this as an anonymous poster online, on a Footy forum. What hope is there in the industry?!??
Then why take notice of the data, if the data doesn't go into detail of the why's?I’m not sure how the data would explain why blokes negotiate better on their own behalf mate.
I know anecdotal evidence is kind of worthless, but this was my experience as a male in the NFP sector. I got promoted into a Team Leader role and was getting paid more than other (female) Team Leaders who had been in the role for 2+ years already. Once I realised, I helped a couple of them practice their pitch for a meeting with the Manager to discuss their wages. But they had all thought that they couldn't have had that discussion, whereas I was really up front about it in my interview.1) Role, apologies for the confusion.
2) The “why” is largely subjective but what is generally accepted is that males are more comfortable negotiating for more money where females generally take what is on offer. This is obviously irrelevant for many roles on enterprise agreements but is the case broadly for those that aren’t.
Registering a business name cost me under $100 for a few years. Am I being pedantic or missing the point here? Or was it just a bad example?I'm not in manufacturing to answer but in general for business here just having a business name costs 1000's a year to register. Pointless costs get passed onto consumer. Electricity is expensive, transport costs heaps here in part because half the cost of petrol is tax and so on
bold - agree. So if it's cheaper to import, why not do it? Hence manufacturing being very unlikely to come back in any meaningful sense and more will be offshored
Then why take notice of the data, if the data doesn't go into detail of the why's?
It's not about being obtuse, and I'm not having a dig at you, merely pointing out that granted your wife has access to the data at the front line.You’re just being obtuse now.
Most data sets demand further investigation. That’s kind of how data works in most cases.
It's not about being obtuse, and I'm not having a dig at you, merely pointing out that granted your wife has access to the data at the front line.
Fair enough, I'm merely pointing out that the data exists but it's not nuanced enough. I've brought up one example, and there's probably 1000's of examples that also point out the 'why's' of gender pay gap.
Too often, everyone is happy to be pissed off just because the gender pay gap exists, but no one wants to go into detail of the why, it's just 'it exists'
Quite possibly, actually most likely, there's not some sort ulterior motive in secret by the male race to punch down on women.
You yourself stated / alluded in your first reply to me on this about how this is subjective and is 'broad'.
The problem here is an old sayingSure, but you can’t expect a raw data set to provide you with the “why,” you can only expect it to show the outcome and perhaps, the “how.”
The gender pay gap exists. The data is the data, it doesn’t judge. There are obviously many reasons why this gap exists. I do not believe that males “punch down” on women on this matter either. But there are underlying reasons, some of which have been touched on in this thread.
But my point is that the data in itself is not going to give you answers. It is simply going to pose the questions.
Apologies if my last response came across as prickly…I did slightly soften my language with an edit but you had quoted me by then.
Why does it need to?A really interesting topic, one where I feel sometimes the data is misused - but this is a really good step, publishing these raw, simple numbers. It will certainly get conversations started. For example - Jetstar has a big gap, largely because highly paid pilots are almost all men. Why is that? How can it change? Do men and women want that to change?
My question straight after the bolded did ask if men/women want it to change, so there is that. In many professions, women may be discouraged from pursuing them (when they otherwise would be interested) simpy due to cultural factors that can arise from being so male-dominated. If otherwise capable female candidates are discouraged from taking up that profession then everyone loses out because we are denying the opportunity for someone good at a job of doing that job.Why does it need to?
How do you define underpaid? The only way i can define jobs as under or overpaid is if people are forced to do certain jobs. But if supply is allowed to be flexible and voluntary and people can move in and out of different jobs then i dont see how they could be overpaid or underpaid over the medium to long run.Because they are underpaid, and considered feminine...
You make a good point with 5. Childcare needs to be fully subsidised by governments and childcare hours extended to incentivise women to work full time and incentivise employers to not discriminate against women with children. The taxpayer should pay for this. Not the parents or employer.A really interesting topic, one where I feel sometimes the data is misused - but this is a really good step, publishing these raw, simple numbers. It will certainly get conversations started. For example - Jetstar has a big gap, largely because highly paid pilots are almost all men. Why is that? How can it change? Do men and women want that to change?
The Economist a while back did a deep dive into this and determined that things like negotiating assertiveness were actually negligible. The main factor they cam up with was career breaks and general hours worked (more women work part time, more men do overtime)
ABC radio had a really good discussion about this the other day too. They (both women, FWIW) were essentially saying this comes about due to two main things:
1. Women are more likely to choose to put their labour toward 'personal' productivity that is children/family, whereas men are more likely to choose to trade their labour to the market for monetary compensation.
2. This choice is heavily influenced by social structures and norms. Things like the legacy effect of discriminatory laws, boys' clubs, men earning money being considered more attractive mates, women being expected to be primary carers, etc.
The problem with the structural stuff is that not only can it affect choices, but it can imbue discrimination - "I'm not sure about hiring a woman because she might take more leave". And even if most employers don't have this attitude, the mere fact that some do will naturally reduce the overall leverage and thus market value of women's labour.
So what should be done going forward?
1. Decide what we actually want. When I hear people say "equality' I am suspicious as it is quite possible that overall, women may want to genuinely make the choice to work less, and a unsophisticated metric based approach can lead to unproductive 'hacks' to achieve the metric.
But the gap is huge and surely needs addressing. I think the main concern is with certain professions, and certainly senior management, there is an imbalance. The power wielded here has a huge effect on not only society but the perspectives of businesses.
2. More encouragement for men to be stay-at-home dads. (Indeed, why not across the board encouragement of career gaps for any reason?)
3. Find ways to make these career gaps have a less negative effect (perceived or real) on a person's labour value. This is a big one - but surely we can find ways. In the WFH era, is it possible to still work part time whilst on parental leave? To at least still have the finger on the pulse and not get left behind what the business is doing?
4. Training and handling toxic or heavily gender biased environments. This still happens, people. Why so much misogyny amongst surgeons? Why are there fewer and fewer male primary school teachers? How can we encourage more female pilots and engineers?
5. More provision of childcare, kindergarten etc. Yes this is a bit socialist. But happy, well adjusted, educated children become well adjusted adults that contribute in the future. Our country will need a lot of productive taxpayers as the boomers all retire. It's in the national interest.
6. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is the conservative side of the discussion - but focusing only on the money women (and men) make might be narrow-sighted. A couple who both work long hours and make a lot of money way well end up raising a child that, despite all the government funded help with childcare, etc, grows up poorly adjusted. Money isn't the only thing of value. There is already evidence of kids with poorer mental health, lack of role models and all of that. Men and women spending time with their kids is good for the parents, the kids and society.
It's not so much wrong as sub-optimal. There is a critical point where it can become discouraging for the minority to enter that industry/company even if they are actually interested in the work - and there is also the cultural impact of "you can't be what you can't see" that might rule out swathes of boys / girls from even considering certain career paths, denying us potentially well matched people/jobs.On 4. What is wrong with heavily gendered biased environments? Sure we need to fix it if sexual discrimination is creating such environments. But if this isnt the case then whats wrong with it?
My question straight after the bolded did ask if men/women want it to change, so there is that. In many professions, women may be discouraged from pursuing them (when they otherwise would be interested) simpy due to cultural factors that can arise from being so male-dominated. If otherwise capable female candidates are discouraged from taking up that profession then everyone loses out because we are denying the opportunity for someone good at a job of doing that job.
If it is simply inherently a less popular choice for women, that is a different matter. But I'd suggest with the numbers so far imbalanced that cultural factors are likely at play.
You seldom hear women complain about a lack of representation in the bricklaying game...Yes if women are not choosing particular careers because they are discouraged to as a result of their gender, or they think they won't fit in because of it, we have a problem for sure. If they're just choosing something else just as a preference it's not an issue.
Well we're getting into speculative territory then, yes just about everyone would agree there are roadblocks created by social norms or some may term that as discriminatory.It's not so much wrong as sub-optimal. There is a critical point where it can become discouraging for the minority to enter that industry/company even if they are actually interested in the work - and there is also the cultural impact of "you can't be what you can't see" that might rule out swathes of boys / girls from even considering certain career paths, denying us potentially well matched people/jobs.
And the heavily biased environments whilst perhaps not problematic in and of themselves, have a higher correlation with discriminatory behaviour.