Gender pay gap

Regardless I can't be bothered with another afternoon/evening of having to repeat myself and explain my posts over and over again

Well that's great, you did say that yesterday however, and then immediately came back again to bore us some more though, so can you please stick to it this time.

@PicassosPaintbrush

Says the person that can’t refute my claims or address them so finds it easier to attack me personally.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

@moimichme

The supermarket case has yet to go to a tribunal, therefore no decision has been reached.

Can you honestly not see why a job that has to be done outside in all/most weather conditions, involves heavy physical activity, heights and is fairly dangerous by comparison to other jobs, might be paid more than a job that is mostly done inside, doesn’t require heavy physical activity (but of course is not stuck at a desk) and is not physically dangerous at all?

Well, in the supermarket case, I believe one of the arguments was that more strength/skill/training was needed for the warehouse jobs, which justified the pay difference. But the tribunal found that the two roles' value to the company was similar, and so they should pay the warehouse and shop-floor staff the same. www.ibblaw.co.uk/insights/blog/equal-pay-case-could-lead-surge-workplace-discrimination-claims

It just seems backwards, to me, that a traditionally 'female'/caring profession should require so much higher educational qualifications vs. a similarly paid, traditionally male career...it seems to reflect that society, yet again, values 'hard work' if it is usually done by men, whereas women have to meet a higher standard for the same wages.

PP - previous poster. Who is clearly moimichme, from the sequence and timestamps of posts...

@Assassinatedbeauty "That's not what the PP was referring to."

How else am I meant to interpret that comment?

Regardless I can't be bothered with another afternoon/evening of having to repeat myself and explain my posts over and over again

Or answering obvious questions like "Why have you brought supermarket warehouse workers and checkout staff into the discussion?" which came directly after a post comparing nursery workers and construction workers

Different jobs with different levels of physical activity and danger

Surely this was obvious, goodbye!

Well your last one makes no sense at all.

And also because you are exceedingly tedious and pompous.

Oh my, don't be a total fool. @Picassospaintbrush hadn't even posted when I replied to you! How could I have possibly thought you were replying to someone who hadn't even posted yet?! Look at the sequence of posts and the timestamps...

@Assassinatedbeauty

As should be obvious from the person I tagged in my reply, I was not replying to @picassospaintbrush.

Why is it so hard for you to understand/interpret my posts correctly?

moimichme

That's a great point. The profit margins in housebuilding are greater than those in childcare, the constraint with pay is always the amount of money that flows that way.

Assisnated, the example quoted is incorrect anyway.

I think you have trashed this thread fmsfms, I doubt anyone else will want to discuss anything with you.

Why have you brought supermarket warehouse workers and checkout staff into the discussion? That's not what the PP was referring to.

@moimichme

What's your point?

I would suggest that a manual labour job on a construction site is far more physically demanding and dangerous, hence the similarities in pay, and hence why supermarket warehouse workers rightly get paid more than male/female checkout staff

If I may attempt to add another layer to this discussion, I also find it interesting that similarly paid (but different) careers which are predominantly filled by women vs. men for example, nursery workers vs. construction workers can have vastly different education requirements. You can start work in construction without any qualifications, and earn approximately the same as someone working in a nursery who must meet a much higher educational standard (which of course has additional training time and costs associated with it). I'm not saying it's unjustified for those working with young children to need certain minimum qualifications, but the disparity in required education levels is huge, for the same wages.

nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/nursery-worker#

nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/construction-labourer

That seeking behavior that is the nature of all creatures great and smol, let us examine it and create an evo psycho explanation for how men are just naturally this way except when they are not and women are just naturally that way except of course for when they are not.

What could be more offensive to misogynist men than for women to act like people?

Fgs. Of course you didn't say that women like shopping, that was suggested by another poster as an example of an interest that women in general have (more so than men) that could be seen as about things. You disagree, I think, although are unwilling to discuss why.

What people are attempting to discuss is the definitions of "things" and "people", and the idea that these might have built-in biases. You disagree, I think, although are unwilling to discuss why.

Gender differences exist, I'm not going to say that studies didn't find what they did. It's this insistence that it is mostly down to inevitable biological differences that seems to be unproven, to me.

@flytipper the only question you asked in your last post was "How did lobsters get shoved in with male behaviour?"

More studies for you guys to ignore and disregard and deny:

Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x

Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-things-women-and-people-A-meta-analysis-of-sex-differences-in-interests.pdf

The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

"Gender differences in interest and enjoyment of math, coding, and highly “systemizing” activities are large. The difference on traits related to preferences for “people vs. things” is found consistently and is very large, with some effect sizes exceeding 1.0. (See especially the meta-analyses by Su and her colleagues, and also see this review paper by Ceci & Williams, 2015)." heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/

Another thought experiment: if you arrived on Earth from another planet and had no knowledge of the "nature vs nurture" debate, no knowledge of feminism, patriarchy or anything relevant to the discussion - eg you were totally neutral, unbiased and uninformed.

Would you be more likely to be convinced by the realms of scientific studies, many of which have been posted in this thread - or by the gender studies/social science "patriarchy, social conditioning" line.

Reminder of what I said in my very first post: "Of course it's not so black and white to say these differences are either 100% nature or 100% nurture, neither should be disregarded."

Does social stigma exist - of course
Should the influence of nature/biology/hormones be ignored? Of course not

@flytipper "Girls like things and boys are interested in people"

As already explained several times - pointing out that on average at a population level that girls are more interested in people related careers, and boys in thing related careers, does not mean that boys can't be interested in people professions and girls can't be interested in thing professions.

I'm so tired of repeating myself

Well you're now trying to derail again.

You know what a straw man is,, right?

It's when you misrepresent someone's position so that it becomes easier for you to attack their position

I never said "Women don't like shopping"

Now you've made me explain what a straw man is, is this always how you debate? With straw men and derails.

This my last attempt at a relevant and fruitful discussion:

If you could wave a magic wand and eliminate overnight all social conditioning, stigma and gender stereotyping - do you think more women in male/female relationships would still choose to be the primary child raising parent, or would it be 50/50, or would more men choose to?

I think it's absurd to suggest that the sex that creates the life,, feels it grow, carries it and nourishes it for 9 months, brings into the world and feeds it from her breast is only staying at home because of the patriarchy

Is this how you always discuss things? Where anything you don't want to talk about is a derail or a straw man?

By that logic designing a car isn't an engineering/thing career because ultimately it's going to be used by a person

I don't feel the need to discuss categories which are commonly accepted and I had no part in coming up with. By all means knock yourselves out with this derail

I think what people want to discuss is what the categorization of people and things is based on, what the definitions of these things are.

Um, engineering and surgery are done for people, no? Or have I misunderstood?