Gender pay gap

That was a summary, in the correct order, of your post using your words. It's ok to say that wasn't what you meant to imply.

Can you explain how you think the guardian anecdote is relevant?

@fmsfms the studies you link are all in relation to girls with CAIS. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but girls with CAIS are genetically male, XY?

@assassinatedbeauty

“The quote about girls in a school who are identifying as trans you use as the starting point for your assertions. You link it to a study that suggests that perhaps autism is linked to prenatal testosterone, and then to a study that suggests that prenatal testosterone may be linked to different interests in girls and boys (the people/things split), and then on to a conclusion that biologically autistic girls are more likely to have male-like interests and characteristics, which therefore draws them towards transitioning peers who you assert are also autistic and masculine-like.

Based on one anecdotal article about girls in one school.”

Not the starting point at all, lol.

We were having the discussion about the influence of testosterone much earlier on. That Guardian article was posted elsewhere and I thought it was relevant to this thread.

If you are going to reply then at least try to be accurate – that’s two replies now which have misread my previous posts

@flytipper

“If you've ever seen two guys face up to one another, reading the other's mind for clues about when or if he'll go for a punch, then you'll know guys are hugely interested in what goes on in other people's minds.”

That’s a laughably bad interpretation of what is going on in those kind of situations. Two guys squaring up to each-other and maintaining eye contact is almost definitely about asserting dominance and seeing who will look away first, and such behaviour is widely replicated across the animal kingdom. You could even reference Jordan Peterson and his lobster/dominance hierarchy theory.

Secondly, such a situation is also certainly about looking for cues, indicators as to who will strike first and where. Why would a guy being squared upto need to know what is going on in the other guys head? They know what is happening, the chest beating, eye contact etc are pretty big clues, almost laughably bad.

“And above all, why IS equality of outcome such an horrific idea?”

Going off topic now, in short the only way to achieve equality of outcome eg 50/50 gender representation in certain professions would be through ‘positive’ discrimination – which is illegal.

If you’re ok with qualified men being turned away from being airline pilots in order to achieve 50/50, then presumably you’re also ok with women who have had their hearts set on being nurses, teachers, vets and other female dominated professions being turned away from those professions in favour of men?

The quote about girls in a school who are identifying as trans you use as the starting point for your assertions. You link it to a study that suggests that perhaps autism is linked to prenatal testosterone, and then to a study that suggests that prenatal testosterone may be linked to different interests in girls and boys (the people/things split), and then on to a conclusion that biologically autistic girls are more likely to have male-like interests and characteristics, which therefore draws them towards transitioning peers who you assert are also autistic and masculine-like.

Based on one anecdotal article about girls in one school.

"You're just making stuff up though, and picking stuff that meets your expectations - you're only saying women are more interested in people than things because you're cherry picking what interests there are.."

Sorry what? Here are just a selection of studies on different interests between the sexes and influence of testosterone

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): bit.ly/2uKxpSQ
Beltz (2011): bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): bit.ly/2vn4KXq
Hines (2016): bit.ly/2hPYKSu

@Flytipper

"The very study you pull up: "The school has had 12 children, all girls, come out as transgender in the past 18 months. The majority, she says, have autism, and some have experienced sexual abuse." reveals exactly why I don't have time to follow your links. n=12"
You have clearly misread the post, please read it again and retype your reply.

You are quoting the Guardian article, not any of the studies I linked.

You're taking a comment which refers to "averages at a population level" and reducing it to an individual level, which isn't the point.

You're just making stuff up though, and picking stuff that meets your expectations - you're only saying women are more interested in people than things because you're cherry picking what interests there are..

"Psychologists
Psychiatrists
Teachers"

All professions massively dominated by women

Psychologists, yes, psychiatrists no (majority male), teachers yes (although not massively at secondary), but lecturers, no (academic staff closer to even, although majority male) - all revealed by a quick google.

How about then Police Officers (majority male)? People bloody important there, or cleaning (majority female) nothing to do with people when you're wiping down toilets...

Do you think you might be seeing what you want to see there?

@SardineReturns ""eg girls more interested in people, boys more interested in things."

Loads of men are interested in people. Like, loads. Loads of women are interested in things. Again, loads."

You're taking a comment which refers to "averages at a population level" and reducing it to an individual level, which isn't the point.

E.g If I said "on average, men are taller than women" then clearly that does not mean that an individual woman can never be taller than a man.

It's a bit of a fallacy response

"Psychologists
Psychiatrists
Teachers"

All professions massively dominated by women.

As already explained multiple times (!) by now. Western Countries are trying their hardest to encourage more women into STEM.

We're not succeeding that well, compared with many other countries, though. It is a cultural issue, else all countries would experience similar gaps.

Why is it that nursing is seen as less valuable than a job in IT? They need at least as much training as most techy roles, and if they make a mistake, someone might die. That's not usually the case with most IT errors - more likely that someone/some company will lose money.

The issues are with women being judged more harshly than men when negotiating pay offers and pay rises - men are expected to do so, women are seen as unwomanly and unlikeable for doing so. Men are managerial wm where women are bossy. Men are promoted for their potential (which they haven't yet achieved,) womenare promoted for proven ability (which they will already have to have achieved.) There are cumulative effects of giving men high-profile projects and opportunities to prove themselves, so then they're safe to be given the next big project and gain all that experience. And professions becoming less respected and less well-paid if they become female-dominated - teaching, nursing, dentistry, etc. And yet, even when there are more women, men are still more likely to be promoted to higher ranks.

Sometimes, people may be held back a bit because of taking time out for parenting or other reasons, though probably it is often more of a brake on careers than it ought to be. But there are plenty of women who haven't had breaks for maternity leave, who also see men rise up past them and get higher payrises, and they're no less competent than these men.

"eg girls more interested in people, boys more interested in things."

Loads of men are interested in people. Like, loads. Loads of women are interested in things. Again, loads.

For men, what about all the
Psychologists
Psychiatrists
Politicians
People managers in work places
Teachers
And so on ad infinitum

And for women, have you never met a woman who was interested in
Tools for her hobbies
Handbags & shoes (stereotype but got to be said!)
Tech gadgets
etc etc

Have you never met a man who was very interested in his children, and a woman who really enjoyed looking at the latest mobile phones? Do you think these things are not common?

Or, when you say "interested in people" "interested in things" do you actually mean in specific ways that are gender coded in the first place? Like, being able to take apart and put together and get a knitting machine going is somehow totally different to doing the same with say a lawnmower? That enjoying spending time with your friends, family & children, caring about them, looking after them, doesn't count as "people" if it is a man doing it?

I find this stuff fascinating.

Or one could argue that growing from a girl into a woman in our society is a scary process, due to the way our society (and lots of men) view girls who have started to have their bodies change.

Add prior sexual abuse on top and you have massive reasons why lots of girls would want to opt out.

And they always have. In my day girls starved themselves and wore baggy clothes to try and slow or stop the process / hide their breasts and therefore stave off the treatment that comes with female puberty, when your body starts to change on the outside. Studies in those days showed that girls who had been sexually abused were particularly at risk of starving themselves for a variety of reasons, one being to make their body less "attractive".

I note that you have not mentioned the sexual abuse aspect at all.

I also note that you are making a link between linking things culturally coded male (at this point in history) and being male which is obviously sexist claptrap.

@Flytipper I posted this in another thread but it's very relevant to this disucssion and I want to hear your thoughts, re this guardian article and testosterone

www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/15/transgender-row-teachers-afraid-challenge-breast-binding

This bit is interesting:

"The school has had 12 children, all girls, come out as transgender in the past 18 months. The majority, she says, have autism, and some have experienced sexual abuse."

There's evidence that autism might be linked to elevated prenatal testosterone www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/linking-autism-sex-gender-and-prenatal-hormones/

There's also evidence that prenatal hormone levels influence female/male differences in behaviour and interests, eg girls more interested in people, boys more interested in things.

www.researchgate.net/publication/273146299_Early_androgen_exposure_and_human_gender_development

www.researchgate.net/publication/237560821_Early_Androgens_Are_Related_to_Childhood_Sex-Typed_Toy_Preferences

So one could argue that autistic girls are "biologically" more likely to have male like interests and characteristics, and thus the transfriendly environment where their also autistic/masculine-like peers are transitioning is influencing them to also transition?

But of course testosterone is all a myth

@Flytipper "I wonder what women in Norway they think about their 'equality'?"

Well I've linked a Norwegian documentary series, the first episode of which discusses the equality paradox and interviews both social scientists and traditional scientists. In fact the episode starts with the interviewer approaching members of the public......so you might want to start there!

lol

@flytipper (reposting with better formatting)

“DO you think European women live in an egalitarian society?”

As already explained in the links I’ve posted re the Nordic Countries and gender gaps – 1st world European Countries rank higher than anywhere else in terms of equality

“Do you think your daughter (hypothetical if you don't - I do) will have as fully equal chances as your son (I have one of those too)”

I believe more is being done today than ever before to provide equality of opportunity, and there are many vocal voices in favour of equity of outcome (which is bad). And P.S saying you have kids is just a weak anecdotal/appeal to authority fallacy combination

“to access traditionally gendered jobs such as engineering? Are you saying she will not face doubts as to her ability in maths, she will not be encouraged by friends and family to pursue something 'more important' like 'helping people', she will not be elbowed out the way by boys at the physics A-level practical....wait, sorry, I'm channelling my adolescence, I'll stay on track.”

As already explained multiple times (!) by now. Western Countries are trying their hardest to encourage more women into STEM. RE ability in maths – this is a nonsensical claim, all the evidence is that girls outperform boys in academia

And as explained in one of the links I’ve posted (it’s funny how this is a recurring theme) , girls perform at a similar level to boys in STEM, but they excel in other subjects www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

“The researchers used data on 475,000 teenagers across 67 countries or regions for the study. They found that while boys’ and girls’ achievements in STEM subjects were broadly similar, science was more likely to be boys’ best subject. Girls, even with their ability in science equalled or excelled that of boys, were often likely to be better overall in reading comprehensions, which relates to higher ability in non-STEM subjects.

“So, even though girls can match boys in terms of how well they do at science and mathematics in school, if those aren’t their best subjects and they are less interested in them, then they’re less likely to choose to study something else.”

More evidence, this time from 1.5m 15 year olds:

“Further, for overall achievement across reading, mathematics, and science literacy girls outperformed boys in 70% of participating countries, including many with considerable gaps in economic and political equality” www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001688

So your theory that girls ability is doubted is clearly false. Girls on the most part do just as well as boys at STEM but do better in other subjects and have a higher level of interest in other subjects. And I have plenty of studies to hand which suggests there is a “nature” element to the difference in interests:

Differences in men and women's interest/priorities:
Lippa (1998): bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): bit.ly/2wyfW23
See also Geary (2017) blog: bit.ly/2vXqCcF
Life paths of mathematically gifted females and males: Lubinski (2014): bit.ly/2vSjSxb

“Please do not throw one or two studies my way. Fine has researched more widely than I would care to and analysed a great many more academic papers than I have time to do. You may dispute her conclusions, but I'm not getting into a paper throwing match with you. I don't need to. Read Fine.”

More appeal to authority fallacy, if you can’t tell me what in Fine is relevant to this debate then it suggests you’re not familiar with the material. You’re just citing her name and the book title as an appeal to authority and have failed to respond to or even acknowledge the previously posted link that disputes her claims quillette.com/2017/03/21/cordelia-fines-testosterone-rex-a-review/

"It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations "

“i.e. all those women farmers in South American and Africa are just waiting to get a bit more money before they can kickback, put on the lipstick and get the nurses outfit on.”

This is an incredible Cathy Newman esque “so you’re saying” and not worth responding to”

@flytipper

“DO you think European women live in an egalitarian society?”

As already explained in the links I’ve posted re the Nordic Countries and gender gaps – 1st world European Countries rank higher than anywhere else in terms of equality

“Do you think your daughter (hypothetical if you don't - I do) will have as fully equal chances as your son (I have one of those too)”
I believe more is being done today than ever before to provide equality of opportunity, and there are many vocal voices in favour of equity of outcome (which is bad). And P.S saying you have kids is just a weak anecdotal/appeal to authority fallacy combination
“to access traditionally gendered jobs such as engineering? Are you saying she will not face doubts as to her ability in maths, she will not be encouraged by friends and family to pursue something 'more important' like 'helping people', she will not be elbowed out the way by boys at the physics A-level practical....wait, sorry, I'm channelling my adolescence, I'll stay on track.”
As already explained multiple times (!) by now. Western Countries are trying their hardest to encourage more women into STEM. RE ability in maths – this is a nonsensical claim, all the evidence is that girls outperform boys in academia

And as explained in one of the links I’ve posted (it’s funny how this is a recurring theme) , girls perform at a similar level to boys in STEM, but they excel in other subjects www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ --
“The researchers used data on 475,000 teenagers across 67 countries or regions for the study.
They found that while boys’ and girls’ achievements in STEM subjects were broadly similar, science was more likely to be boys’ best subject. Girls, even with their ability in science equalled or excelled that of boys, were often likely to be better overall in reading comprehensions, which relates to higher ability in non-STEM subjects.
“So, even though girls can match boys in terms of how well they do at science and mathematics in school, if those aren’t their best subjects and they are less interested in them, then they’re less likely to choose to study something else.”
More evidence, this time from 1.5m 15 year olds: “Further, for overall achievement across reading, mathematics, and science literacy girls outperformed boys in 70% of participating countries, including many with considerable gaps in economic and political equality” www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001688
So your theory that girls ability is doubted is clearly false. Girls on the most part do just as well as boys at STEM but do better in other subjects and have a higher level of interest in other subjects. And I have plenty of studies to hand which suggests there is a “nature” element to the difference in interests:
Differences in men and women's interest/priorities: Lippa (1998): bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): bit.ly/2wyfW23
See also Geary (2017) blog: bit.ly/2vXqCcF
Life paths of mathematically gifted females and males: Lubinski (2014): bit.ly/2vSjSxb

“Please do not throw one or two studies my way. Fine has researched more widely than I would care to and analysed a great many more academic papers than I have time to do. You may dispute her conclusions, but I'm not getting into a paper throwing match with you. I don't need to. Read Fine.”
More appeal to authority fallacy, if you can’t tell me what in Fine is relevant to this debate then it suggests you’re not familiar with the material. You’re just citing her name and the book title as an appeal to authority and have failed to respond to or even acknowledge the previously posted link that disputes her claims quillette.com/2017/03/21/cordelia-fines-testosterone-rex-a-review/
"It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations "

“i.e. all those women farmers in South American and Africa are just waiting to get a bit more money before they can kickback, put on the lipstick and get the nurses outfit on.”
This is an incredible Cathy Newman esque “so you’re saying” and not worth responding to”

A relatively simple fix, which would start to address the gap, would be to make maternity pay 100% of the recipient's wage prior to taking leave.

However, I'd expect howls of protest in the UK if this was proposed, so doubt very much than any form of social engineering to deal with the issue would be acceptable.

The only way I could see this addressed, and other pay unbalances (e.g. CEO versus lowest paid employee), would be for complete state-control of employment and pay, highly unlikely.

I consistently see my female co-workers promoted to role X. Role X didn't exist until a few years ago, but was created as an 'alternative career pathway' in an otherwise very traditional progression. Men are consistently promoted to the more traditional and well known role Z.

Role X was once supposed to be an equivalent to role Z but it has become astonishingly apparent that Role X is just a stepping stone to Role Z for women, that men (particularly outside of London) don't need to bother with. The women may spend several years (or even the rest of their careers) at this role, watching male counterparts be promoted above them despite having less experience and knowledge. The pay difference between the roles is considerable, but the differences in the actual work required is minimal at best, and only exists because of policies stating that certain things need to be done by Role Z only, even though the Role X women are more than qualified to do it.

These women aren't choosing to be X instead of Z. Many of them would be exceptional at Role Z and deserve the salary and responsibilities that come with it. Most of them directly applied for Role Z with very strong applications. Unfortunately they are consistently told 'maybe next year', and so we watch the gap continue to grow.

I'm not sure why the bold assertions that as different pay for same work is illegal, it never happens, when 2 women in the thread have said it had happened to them, and it had happened to me too, in more than one job.

Its difficult as we're not supposed to discuss pay, and any differences can be explained away if you try . Eg at the moment I am paid about 15% less, apparently this is because the men are paid too much for "historical reasons " and my pay is correct. Not very reassuring. There can always be a reason found when women raise this. There is always going to be something different somewhere to pin it on. And then of course you can't just say that's not fair give me more money, that is not a "proper" reason. Which actually is silly when you think about it.

My industry is the one that came out with the largest pay gap.

There is also this phenomenon that when an industry or role becomes more female dominated, pay reduces, and prestige. Computer programming at the start was for women, seen as repetitive, it low respect low pay. Then men moved in and, high status high pay. The roles in IT with more women now are seen as less difficult, paid less. It's interesting. There was a study that accounted for all reasons for gap and found a stubborn % that persisted. They thought, maybe this is just an average of how much more people are prepared to pay a man. And I think that is true. Men have more worth in our society. Of course they are more expensive.

@RatRolyPoly

No problem, the entire series is worth a watch. Especially the last episode

The pay gap existed for many years and was justified by the maxim that men have a family to support and women do not because they are part of the family the men support.
When equal pay laws were implemented the justification for the pay gap switched to women choosing to try to "have it all" by reproducing.

Seems a bit obvious to me.

Hmmm, just starting on one of the links:

"It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations "

Obviously I will read the whole thing, but my preconception before starting is that more developed nations these days tend to be capitalist, and I was under the impression capitalism is steeped in patriarchy; that a man's deck is stacked within it far more than a woman's. And that simply dropping women into STEM careers in a capitalist economy rife with unconscious bias isn't going to give them the tools they would need to succeed, both in regards to the financial and the emotional rewards of working. So probably not a surprise that they would take the path of less resistance and fulfill society's expectations to take on the caring roles.

But that's my preconception; now to read that link!