Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[CM86]

Is that a rhetorical question?

I literally answered your question... And then expressed exasperation that you needed it explained...

 

[Fadge]

I literally answered your question... And then expressed exasperation that you needed it explained...

Why are males under-represented in traditionally female roles?

 

[CM86]

Why are males under-represented in traditionally female roles?

Because they are underpaid, and considered feminine...

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Why are males under-represented in traditionally female roles?

 

[Carringbush2010]

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.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

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.

I’m not sure how the data would explain why blokes negotiate better on their own behalf mate.

 

[the_interloper]

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?!??

Ok my main point is speak to a woman, how can I talk about their lived experiences in this industry? Some might even call it “mansplaining” I reckon.

And yeah this industry will be rooted if I don’t flesh this out in great detail with you. No more computer networks and data centres, we’re cooked!

 

[Carringbush2010]

I’m not sure how the data would explain why blokes negotiate better on their own behalf mate.

Then why take notice of the data, if the data doesn't go into detail of the why's?

 

[MC Bad Genius]

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 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.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

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

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?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Then why take notice of the data, if the data doesn't go into detail of the why's?

I wonder if you are just being obtuse now.

Most data sets demand further investigation. That’s kind of how data works in most cases. The data is there. It is now down to how it is pulled apart and used to change the status quo.

Surely you understand this?

 

[Carringbush2010]

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 Cryptkeeper]

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'.

Sure, 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.

 

[Fadge]

An earlier poster summed it up perfectly - a 'Gender Pay Gap' absolutely exists, but it will necessarily always exist whilst more women than men continue to be the primary carers for their family (and in doing so sacrifice their career development and opportunities).

To say the current Gender Pay Gap is 19% is a very lazy statistic. We need to understand what it 'should' be as a baseline, based on the demographic data available from the ABS (for example), and therefore how far from that baseline the Gap is.

For example, if it were determined the baseline Gender Pay Gap should be 23%, based on productive hours being worked across the country by men compared to women (this is one of many metrics that could be used), and the Gap is calculated at 19%, do we actually have an issue?

Because my belief is that there is a lot of time and energy wasted on an issue that doesn't actually exist....

 

[burge13]

Sure, 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.

The problem here is an old saying

"stats don't lie, people that use them do"

 

[kickazz]

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.

 

[kickazz]

Some food for thought on how norms/societal structure is so deeply embedded in all of this:

Today is Feb 29th - the day that it is 'traditionally acceptable' for women to make marriage proposals to men. Yeah. We are still that backward.

It got me thinking - as 3 or 4pm rolls around at the office, there's probably more women thinking, "I'd better take Jimmy to basketball or else I'm a bad mum" and there's more men thinking, "I'll do some overtime tonight so I can afford a decent engagement ring".

There are hundreds of little things like this. And they all manifest in the GPG.

 

[burge13]

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?

Why does it need to?

 

[kickazz]

Why does it need to?

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.

 

[Seeds]

Because they are underpaid, and considered feminine...

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.

 

[Seeds]

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.

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.

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?

We need to fix discrimination in pay and work. Absolutely this leads to a better society to live in. But this doesnt necessarily lead to the gender pay gap reducing. It might. But it might not. The gender pay gap should not be the goal. Ending discrimination in employmemt should be the goal. If you do that then you get the right and fair outcome with wages.

 

[kickazz]

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?

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.

 

[the_interloper]

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.

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.

 

[burge13]

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.

You seldom hear women complain about a lack of representation in the bricklaying game...

 

[Carringbush2010]

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.

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.

Either or, to speculate, one could well argue that social norms / discrimination are an exception rather than the rule.

Again, I can provide real life analogy of females in my workplace, like fitters and sparkies (read reportedly male dominated) that are paid the same as the blokes for the same role.

Nobody held a gun to their head and said 'you must work this male dominated role' it was all about freedom of choice, and nobody held a gun to the company's head and said 'you must employ this female and pay her discriminatory rates'.

I'm sure there's literally 1000's of similar analogous examples.

Yet, here we are, 40 pages in, going around in circles, the amount time and emotional effort to keep the narrative to 'there's a gender pay gap', without the nuance, like it's an everyone's / whole of society's fault / problem, is staggering, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.