Gender pay gap

[FlyTipper]

The world divides into two: those who believe a gender pay gap exists, and those who don't.

Those who don't say women are doing different jobs. They are working part-time, prioritising home/family, do not want the high level responsibility and work load associated with high profile jobs. Thus women choose lower paid jobs because they prefer the conditions.

Those who believe it exists say two people presenting the same show or headlining the same film should be paid the same but clearly are not.

My position: women do different work and this largely explains the observed pay gap. But where the world is set up for men to succeed, women have to pick up the 'crumbs' they can. SO the pay gap doesn't truly exist, but that isn't because of women's choice.

As befits my character, I like to have my views tested. DO you agree?

Haha, massive almost identical x-post

Mind meld!

Think I've just got over my dithering on this topic:
www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html

Good enough for me.

"“The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours,” she wrote in a paper published this month in The American Economic Review."

FlyTipper, are you Dr. Goldin??

@Flytipper

"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"

We agree RE less equal Countries but you are completely and utterly missing the point re more equal Countries, to the extent that I think you are wilfully misinterpreting it or too ideologically entrenched to consider any alternative.

I'll say it again, slowly this time so it sinks in.

Nordic Countries = high in equality, high in encouraging women into STEM and actively trying to reduce the gender gap. = BIGGER GENDER GAPS

Your logic is backwards - the Nordic Countries are actively trying to reduce the social stigma and the "nurture" element, therefore you think that means the "prescribed norms" are greater, hilarious

"STEM careers are generally secure and well-paid but the risks of not following such a path can vary. In more affluent counties, where any choice of career feels relatively safe, women may feel able to make choices based on non-economic factors." www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

"I think you underestimate the degree to which social conditioning affects every aspect of women's lives in our so-called 'free' continent."

Yes, that's why in my very first post in this thread I said "Of course it's not so black and white to say these differences are either 100% nature or 100% nurture, neither should be disregarded."

However, the article I linked to earlier (which you clearly haven't read) says:

"Some may argue that patriarchal social factors encourage women into stereotypically feminine fields (childcare, nursing etc.), and discourage them from pursuing STEM related careers. However, if one were to make the case that societal factors determine choices made by men and women, you would expect that in more egalitarian countries, the sexes would make similar career choices, and thus, gender gaps would recede. However, studying sex differences across 55 different cultures, Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, came to the opposite conclusion (emphasis added):

With improved national wealth and equality of the sexes, it seems differences between men and women in personality traits do not diminish. On the contrary, the differences become conspicuously larger."

"I suggest you get clued up by reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender."

Here's an idea, how about you quote the relevant section to demonstrate you've read it and understood it?

And also this article contesting her claims quillette.com/2017/03/21/cordelia-fines-testosterone-rex-a-review/

I'll take a bow

Female Uber drivers earn 7% less than Male, even though the fares are set by the app.

Must be the Patriarchal social conditioning right??!

Wrong

Women are more likely to quit driving for Uber than Men. More experienced drivers earn more and are more likely to be men.

Men drive faster than women, and thus earn more

Men work different shifts than women, are more likely to work lucrative shifts

fortune.com/2018/02/06/uber-gender-pay-gap-study/

Oh but I guess it's that social conditioning that encourages men to drive faster.

Or it's testosterone that makes men more likely to take risks e.g drive faster.

Oh but Cordelia Fine says that the influence of testosterone on behaviour is a myth!

Why do women quit more than men, and I wonder why women don't take on the more lucrative shifts? Hmm, let me see if I can figure that conundrum out...

As for the Nordic paradox, I would be fascinated to find out more about this phenomenon. Certainly I'd like to know more than just the assumption that more equality in society seems to demonstrate that women naturally and inevitably choose low paid, low status, nurturing and people focused jobs. That it's just simply allowing women to show their natural tendencies to be caring and poor, case closed.

@RatRolyPoly

"Do either of you have a link to any pertinent studies of the Nordic countries' efforts and their results?"

I've already linked to one article which details the gender gaps in personality/career choices quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/

And linked a documentary which explores both sides of the argument:

And here's some actual studies

"evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality....are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity.... Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men’s
and women’s personalities." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ijop.12265

"Overall, higher levels of human developmentincluding long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealthwere the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality" www.researchgate.net/publication/24001221_Why_Can%27t_a_Man_Be_More_Like_a_Woman_Sex_Differences_in_Big_Five_Personality_Traits_Across_55_Cultures_vol_94_pg_168_2008 [accessed May 14 2018].

Thanks @fmsfms, I'm afraid I missed your linked article on the first page (doh!) and couldn't watch the video at work; but you've given me loads of things there to be getting on with, so thank you for your efforts :)

@AssassinatedBeauty

You could start with the documentary linked above

As for Uber:

"Men are much more likely to drive the graveyard overnight shift, which could have more people coming home from bars or whatnot. But women are actually dramatically more likely to drive the Sunday afternoon shift, and that is also a very lucrative driving time. So it’s not so much that there aren’t differences about when men and women drive. It just doesn’t seem to be super-related to driving a pay gap, because they’re both driving at lucrative times, they’re just different times. "

"look at the attrition rates, it is true that women do fall off the platform more. But they’re also earning less. So it’s not clear whether it’s because of preferences for not liking to drive as much as men like to drive, or if it’s simply an earnings effect. "

How about you either listen to the podcast or read the transcript instead of injecting more "but patriarchy!" into the results freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

All of that is very interesting, but it does not address any of the "why", it is describing what happens at Uber but not why women are making different choices to men. Just that they are, and that this results in a pay gap. Which is surely something we already know at a general level, so I'm not sure why it's being treated as some massively exciting new information.

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!

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.

@RatRolyPoly

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

You accuse feminists (me) of being so limited in our entrenched thought patterns we just can't see the wood for the trees. I could flip that and say exactly the same about you, fmsfms. YOU cannot admit that there could be more than one way of explaining the Nordic paradox.

DO you think European women live in an egalitarian society?

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) 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.

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.

"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 "

more able to naturally diverge this part of the sentence reveals the bias of the piece. Underlying this phrase is the assumption that males and females naturally diverge when you take economic practicalities away, 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 type of analysis ignores the role of social constraints, as if all differences between the sexes were just biology, just natural. Well, we know, any woman knows, how much women are expected to fulfill an expectation of femininity in Western society. I really believe that fms and his ilk are convinced the west is an egalitarian utopia.

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

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.

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.

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.

@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”

@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 "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 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

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.