Gender pay gap

Oh bless you. But thanks for trying.

I asked you a question. That's not putting words into your mouth. You can answer, yes or no, or a more complex response. You're the big JP fan who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of all his output. This topic of "agreeableness" is mentioned in his work and research, and what I was asking was is there a standard definition for what this means when it comes to that research.

@assassinatedbeauty "So the Wikipedia definition is what Jordan Peterson and others use when referring to the personality trait that women seem to have more than men?"

Dear god, did I say that? You're putting words in my mouth Cathy Newman style "so you're saying the wikipedia definition is what Jordan Peterson uses"

It's really tiresome to have to constantly point this out

So the Wikipedia definition is what Jordan Peterson and others use when referring to the personality trait that women seem to have more than men?

@Assassinatedbeauty

I'm sure you're just as capable of googling agreeableness as me. It was from the first google result which was wikipedia

@mrghardy "Even taking 1-2 years out should not have such a detrimental affect on your career."

If the pay gap is the difference on average between lifetime earnings of men/women. Then clearly all other things being equal then taking 1-2 years out of your career is going to reduce your lifetime earnings vs someone who doesn't.

Let's assume we have two twin brothers who are identical in every way, education, ability, work ethic etc. At 21 they enter the same graduate scheme and work/perform equally, paid the same etc.

At 30 Brother A decides to take 2 years out to go travelling. Brother B stays with the firm in the same job. Brother A returns 2 years later as planned and they both work until 65.

Brother B has +2 years of salary and pension contributions. He's earned more than Brother A, is that fair? Of course it is

Now replace Brother A with Sister A and 2 years travelling with 2 years maternity leave. Brother B still has +2 years work exp than Sister A and has earned more than her over the course of their careers. Is that fair?

You've used quotes, is that definition from somewhere specific i.e. an agreed definition that is used in psychological research in this area?

@assassinatedbeauty

"Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, and considerate."

Does agreeable mean compliant and someone who readily acquiesces to more dominant people?

Do women who become less agreeable get rewarded the same way as men who are "naturally" less agreeable? Or are they penalised for it?

FlyTipper

"Oh dear.

More equal/free/liberal Countries = more freedom for women to pursue the prescribed norms for their sex their own interests.

Less free/equal Countries then the only way for women to progress is by pursuing professions that increase their earning potential thus giving them reason to work against gender stereotypes

I think you underestimate the degree to which social conditioning affects every aspect of women's lives in our so-called 'free' continent. That means you are new to this board, or a man, or both. I suggest you get clued up by reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender."

What do you make of Norway? They try to be the most supportive of women but this is exactly the case for them, they end up with men in positions of power/money and women do more "social" type work. Would you say they have subconscious gender stereotyping ("prescribed norms" as you say) that these women fall into, or what is going on?

I see these areas:

• Children: Women pretty much have to make a choice, career vs. children. Women earn more in their 20s than men. By the mid 30s it's the other way round. It's been shown in the data that having children negatively affects all but the very successful women. Whereas men benefit. This is a problem. Guys arguing this is "normal" or "ok" or whatever else are MRA. Women should not be forced to have to make this choice. They should not be penalized so heavily. Even taking 1-2 years out should not have such a detrimental affect on your career. It's plain prejudice against mothers.

• Socialization: Women choose less well-paid jobs. I believe that is to a not insignificant part due to socialization. Why would a woman join a career where 90% are men and she has to fight all the way? I wouldn't do it. Maybe I would if it were 90% but as a woman with 90% men, no way.

• Society: Directly links to the previous, women's work is not valued. The work traditionally performed by women is not assigned a lot of monetary value in society.

• Picking up the slack: Again linked to the previous and circling back to the first, women do a lot of "picking up the slack". Most unpaid hours of work, be it with children or at home or caring for people (relatives) is performed by women.

So anyone who says the gender pay gap does not exist is talking out of his arse, or simply doesn't understand the issues. Yes of course in most companies men and women are paid the same (for ranks below manager, i.e. below where contract negotiations matter) but that's not what the pay gap is about. The points I listed as issues, are not explanations (and thus acceptable) for the pay gap in the data. They are problems.

ps as an afterthought, maybe a bit controversial but Jordan Peterson has some videos on this relating to "agreeableness". Women are more so and men less so. This makes girls better students, but men more successful in careers and he explained how he helped (he is practicing after all) women be less agreeable and have successful careers. But even with this I would question, why is it this way? Do these people who are less agreeable really bring more value to society, more profit to firms? I don't know.

I've got to go out now, but will come back to this...

I am actually doing a consulting project at a University so there are options to think about....

I think it was this study:

www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/01/27/girls-believe-boys-smarter-young-age

Now it was a sample size of 400 children which isn’t necessarily a smoking gun by any means, but it’s more than enough for more a deep dive into this. We need to research this more.

@Picassospaintbrush I'm also interested in any approaches you can share with us that companies are now trying to implement, as well as the education angle.

I don’t think men and women are different enough to explain the discrepancies. Does anyone remember a report from last year (or possibly early this year?) which outline the sense of self worth in girls relative to boys starts as young as 6? I don’t think we’re going to be making any meaningful headway until we identify why that was and how to correct it.

Are you able to say what kinds of approaches are consider across all sectors? Do you have any data on what are more successful approaches than others?

I was wondering whether business looks to the education system as part of the solution, and what initiatives could be supported by businesses there.

I mentioned earlier the UK government analysis recently published shows even after childbearing the biggest percentage is "unexplained".

Really what is comes down to is we have been able to get away with it for decades. We are at a bit of a tipping point where firms are just giving up trying to blag their way out of it and act on it instead, although it's not an instant fix.

And so we start to examine and explain the unexplained, and deal with it. I met the person in charge of doing just his for Easyjet last week, (you may remember the media circus around the pilots v cabin staff gap), among a couple of hundred other Reward professionals at a conference. As a group we work together cross sector on solutions and a great deal of knowledge sharing is going on now as boards are finally needed answers.

Let's wait for fmsfms to put me right though eh!

Interestingly the IoP president was quoted in this recent BBC article as saying that:

"There is no evidence to suggest any intrinsic differences in ability or interest to explain why girls and boys choose technical subjects differently,"

Presumably they are mistaken about the intrinsic differences in interest? Perhaps because they are a physicist and not an evolutionary psychologist.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44141840

As revealed with the case of the proposed study into trans people who choose to detransition. The halls of academia are rife with political bias and if you were to propose a study that challenges the leftist progressive narrative they will shut your shit down.

@Assassinatedbeauty "The reason you mentioned is put forward as a "might be" the cause of drop out. And, as the article goes on to explain, this would only account for some of the STEM dropouts. A large number of girls who have the necessary ability and for whom it is their best subject drop out."

I put forward two reasons:

a) better in other subjects
b) more interested in other subjects.

"We are inclined to choose what we are best at and also enjoy. This makes sense and matches common school advice."

"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."

The key part here is interested - which brings us back to topics previously discussed in great detail

@Assassinatedbeauty "Can you say what it is about this study that you find to be not credible, and easily dismissed?"

I don't recall saying anything about that study or any study in particular.

A previous poster said something to the effect of "social science studies use small sample sizes eg 12 people" and I replied something to the effect of "no wonder they have no credibility"

I pointed out how people on any side of any debate are quick to dismiss studies which oppose their perspective to illustrate how ideologically entrenched people are, this wasn't in reference to anything in particular

There is a disconnect here, on the one hand we want women to have all these “choices” and to have to deal with absolutely none of the negative costs of those choices. People talk as if children do not and should not cost anything. Well newsflash they do and someone has to pay for it.

Yes it might cost you more to work but it’s not your job that’s costing you money is the decision to have a child. However if you DO chose to work then that’s years put into a career that will pay dividends down the road with higher earning potential.

It’s a human right to have children, but it is not a human right to have that decision subsidised by everyone else. In addition the carbon footprint of each new human life is colossal, especially those born in the West as our consumption is magnitudes greater. Maybe not this or even the next generation but we’re going to have to have the difficult conversation around human overpopulation.

Personally I don’t think nursery workers or childminders are paid anywhere near enough considering how important early years care is for developing infants and toddlers. It’s prime developmental time for a whole host of things like development of social skills, behavioural management and emotional development. There are some good settings out there and some not so good ones, but this racec to the bottom to provide the lowest cost childcare will bite us in the ass culturally down the road.

I say this as a single stay at home dad I took the time off to provide one to one care to my dc, but I had resources accrued for this purpose, so I haven’t had to rely on the state to meet my own obligations, I had a child I just went on fewer international holidays, and lived a less extravagant lifestyle in my 20s. Yes my overall lifetime earnings will be a bit less, but I personally always wanted a child and wanted to be more involved than my own father was. He fucked off when I was little.

As to my own child I will raise them to be independent, work out what they aspire to in life and factor that into their lifestyle and career goals accordingly and not to just rely on voting on the transfer of wealth from one group to another. Resources are finite, but the human desire to consume them are potentially infinite. This attitude that we’re all entitled to everything is dangerous, as I’d we all took that view the whole system collapsed. Now I’m all for a social safety net, but there has to be limits somewhere.

I don't know if you read the whole article that you linked to @fmsfms :

http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

There were no definitive conclusions drawn about why girls drop out of STEM. The reason you mentioned is put forward as a "might be" the cause of drop out. And, as the article goes on to explain, this would only account for some of the STEM dropouts. A large number of girls who have the necessary ability and for whom it is their best subject drop out.

Here is one study into the impact of blind auditions:

gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians

Can you say what it is about this study that you find to be not credible, and easily dismissed? Was the rise in female orchestra members actually caused by another factor, or did the rise in female orchestra members not happen? Or something else?

@bloodmagic

"The contributing causes are proven too"

Questionable statement. You can go deeper and ask how big a role does each cause play

"You can look up scientific studies about how when orchestras change to blind auditions the proportion of women hired increases dramatically"

Ok, but as someone that has posted multiple studies in this thread about the innate differences between men/women and suggested biological/hormonal influences - what makes these orchestra studies more credible than the easily dismissed studies I posted?

If I posted 10 studies that said carbs don't make you fat, then low carb dieters would find multiple reasons why those studies aren't valid (sample size) and then respond with 10 studies that say low carb is the best diet - there's an element of going round in circles here and ideological resistance

"You could also look up studies showing that teachers believe girls to be worse at mathematics and science even when the opposite is measured and how girls tend to drop mathematics subjects early, and maybe draw a connection between the two? "

I already posted two studies that used 2m students and demonstrated that boys and girls perform at an equal level in STEM, but girls a) do better in other subjects than they do in STEM and b) are more interested in other subjects.

If my son can hold his own in school rugby but is a better football player than he is a rugby player then it makes sense that he will be more interested in football and choose it over rugby

The wage gap and wage discrimination are different things. Wage discrimination is one contributing cause of the wage gap.

The wage gap isnt something you can believe in or not believe in, like an afterlife, its a measured fact. The contributing causes are proven too. You can look up scientific studies about how when orchestras change to blind auditions the proportion of women hired increases dramatically, about how if you send out identical resumes some with a mans name and some with a womans name the mans name is rated as more competent and offered thousands more in salary, about how when women perform subjective tasks anonymously their work is rated at a higher standard than when their sex is known, and about how when women do enter previously male dominated fields those fields become less respected and pay less (recent examples include biology, psychology and anthopology which used to be seen as highly intellectual and now are seen as softer and touchy-feely, earlier examples include teaching). You could also look up studies showing that teachers believe girls to be worse at mathematics and science even when the opposite is measured and how girls tend to drop mathematics subjects early, and maybe draw a connection between the two?

Its not like "hmm, is there a wage gap? Does society unfairly discriminate against women on a massive scale due to their sex? Does that have a negative impact on society as a whole?" We already know the answer to all 3 is yes. The only questions left to ask are:

1. If we fixed all these causes, would there still be an innate difference in the earnings of the sexes? (Answer, maybe but thats also irrelevant and couldn't be proven until we have dealt with all the causes we can identify) and
2. If its only disadvantaging women then why ahould anyone care?