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?

"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.

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.

@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.

Western Countries are trying their hardest to encourage more women into STEM. I'm glad you believe that you are in a position to assess this. All you can truly say is Western countries are trying harder. In any case, I see you have avoided answering my questions: do you think European women live in an egalitarian society? Do you think a hypothetical boy and girl born today will have the same full access, same equality of opportunity, to access and succeed in careers like engineering?

Fine discusses the research behind the genderisation of our so-called egalitarian utopia. The Cohen work on testosterone is there among other stuff. I have read it. I suggest you do. But you're right on one thing: I must buy Testosterone Rex where she goes into this in much more detail.

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

"eg girls more interested in people, boys more interested in things." this just reveals how much you've been suckered into this men are from mars nonsense. 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.

And above all, why IS equality of outcome such an horrific idea? This is really what gets you, isn't it. One day, women might help you when your computer breaks down, or when you go to the architect with a project and a woman opens the door. I would not campaign for equality of outcome, but I see absolutely no problem with women being equally represented in all parts of the employment spectra.

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?

@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 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

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.

@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?

@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

@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?

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?

@assassinatedbeauty

“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?”

No it wasn’t, go look at my post from 946am where I said “And I have plenty of studies to hand which suggests there is a “nature” element to the difference in interests”

We were discussing this before the Guardian article was posted.

As for the Guardian article.

If testosterone is responsible for boys having different interests than girls
And if high levels of natal testosterone are responsible for autism
And if high levels of natal testosterone are also responsible for girls having more masculine like interests

Then it’s not outlandish to suggest that autistic girls with more masculine like interests have these interests not because of gender dysphoria but because of their natal testosterone exposure

It’s funny, this board seems understandably very cautious about masculine teenage girls suddenly identifying as transgender and transitioning except when that involves speculating that there may be a "nature” reason for this, which would then involve accepting that testosterone (contrary to previously expressed popular belief) does have some influence on behaviour and personality differences between the sexes

I was referring to your post at 12.43pm, where I summarised what you said. So what you wrote in that post is an incorrect summary of what you think, and the Guardian article is a red herring that you don't put any particular relevance on?

There's a lot of "if's" in your argument and I'm not convinced that you can be certain of those "if's" being definitively provable.

Regardless of where it comes from, girls with autism and "masculine" interests/traits shouldn't feel that being transgender is the only way to feel comfortable and accepted for who they are. If only it were the case that it was clear that you can be into whatever interests/present how you like without being told you're masculine or male-like.

@assassinatedbeauty "There's a lot of "if's" in your argument and I'm not convinced that you can be certain of those "if's" being definitively provable. "

Well actually I can back up all of those "If's" with studies (they've already been posted)

The purpose of posting "If" was to show the step by step chain which might lead one to a reasonable conclusion that autistic girls suddenly identifying as transgender have more masculine like interests that are attributable to something other than gender dysphoria

Regardless, going round and circles to correct your misinterpretations of my posts is getting old so I think I’m done for a while

Before you give up on me, would you clarify that the studies you've posted about prenatal testosterone are about girls with CAIS? As in, children who are male (XY) with an intersex condition? Perhaps I've misunderstood about that.

Also, forgive the continuing questions, but you seem to be saying that the gender pay gap exists due to natural and inevitable differences between women and men. Unless I've misunderstood you?

So, you wouldn't be interested in any attempts to change the current situation as it's entirely to be expected, is that right?

@AssassinatedBeauty

"Before you give up on me, would you clarify that the studies you've posted about prenatal testosterone are about girls with CAIS? As in, children who are male (XY) with an intersex condition? Perhaps I've misunderstood about that."

The studies are referring to CAH: congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which I understand to be a variety of related conditions

In context of studies it seems to refer to females exposed to excessively high male hormonoes during development, this may result in ambiguous genitals, it may not.

All the studies refer to "girls" or "females" so I assume their subjects were not intersex

Regardless the more I think about it the more confusing it becomes: If autism is really an excessively "male" brain, then perhaps highly autistic females also have excessively male/masculinised brains - is that truly gender dysphoria or not?

I think I disagree with a lot of people on this board because I do think people are genuinely being born in the wrong body (their minds don't align with the body)

I'm not sure whether we should be encouraging autistic females to identify as trans.

The fact that 12 autistic girls in one school are identifying as trans leads me to believe there's a social element to those diagnosis

But to reiterate, I don't think the influence of hormones on behaviour, personality and interests can be so easily dismissed as the "but read Cordelia Fine" crowd want you to believe.

fmsfms in your desperation to have an argument, you have singled out a comment from someone who agreed with you.

You said:

""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"

It was Disturbingly who made the comment you quote and argue with, about cherry picking.

How do you expect people to have a conversation with you if you can't even be bothered to read the posts properly? If you jump to conclusions about who is saying what?

Or are you actually challenging Diturbingly on their "cherry picking" comment, even though they were on your "side"?

This selective cut n paste thing is very frustrating.

This stuff is not about a conversation, but about trying to "win".

If you have to selectively cut and paste (ie change the meaning / remove the context) rather than engaging with the actual argument, then I'm sorry to advise you, that you have almost certainly "lost".

I can't believe there are people arguing that at a population level men are simply not interested in people and women are simply not interested in things.
So, women don't like shopping, now?

This is silly.

READ what people are saying and engage with it rather than picking bits out and arguing at them. Also. Double check before replying so that you dont' accidentally strike up an argument with somene who is supporting you - that is an absolute sign that you aren't really bothering to read what people are writing, which says how much you respect what they have to say, ie, you don't.

And you have entirely FAILED to engage with the other point about the girls - that some had experienced sexual abuse - and how that might link in to their feelings about their bodies and their sex.

Tell a lie, disturbingly doesn't agree with you

The fact remains that you are cutting out context, arguing with things that people haven't said, at cross purposes, and generally not engaging with the meat of what people are saying.

Your "conversation" style is confusing, and to be honest rather tedious.

When you say that men aren't interested in people, is this something you've observed personally?

@sardinereturns

"I can't believe there are people arguing that at a population level men are simply not interested in people and women are simply not interested in things.
So, women don't like shopping, now?"

Congratulations on an exceptional example of a Cathy Newman "so you're saying" straw man

I already addressed how nonsensical it is to use "on average at population level" at an individual level e.g. Men on average are taller than women, doesn't mean women can't be taller than men, but thanks for making me repeat myself

And I select which bits I reply to because those are the bits which I deem worthy of follow up e.g. The rest of your posts to me don't make any sense so they're being ignored

"When you say that men aren't interested in people, is this something you've observed personally?"

Again with the straw man, here's an idea,, read the relevant studies that I linked

I'm busy now, bye!

"Women like shopping" is at a population level, surely?