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?

Of course women like shopping is at population level (and a stereotype).

Men also like shopping (at a population level) although their shopping is somehow not deemed frivolous in the same way that women's is. You can see them browsing in a wide range of shops, every weekend.

@assassinatedbeauty

Yes, women like shopping. This doesn't mean that all women like shopping. It doesn't mean that all men don't like shopping

It's also a straw man because shopping isn't something I brought up

Oh lol just seen this:

"I select which bits I reply to because those are the bits which I deem worthy of follow up".

Yessir righto

That's hilarious.

We get these come over sometimes don't we, to set us straight, so generous.

"Yes, women like shopping. This doesn't mean that all women like shopping. It doesn't mean that all men don't like shopping"

Ok, I'm confused. Women in general like shopping more than men do, is surely what was meant? But, you don't want to discuss any other examples than the ones you brought up because you regard them as straw men, is that right?

It was related to that posters assertion that

"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."

I was questioning if that is true, given that, in general, I don't think that girls are more interested in people (anyone been in smiggle lately? certainly plenty of girls been keenly interested in "things" in there) or that boys are more interested in "things" (groups of boys are to be found every weekend enjoying each other's company in all manner of pursuits).

These sexist studies and evo psych types have a lot to answer for.

The very idea that a girl who likes, what, mechanics or something, or wants short hair, must have a boy brain, she must have got some boyness from somewhere, probably been testosteroned in the womb, yes that'll cover it off. They used to say this sort of thing about lesbians. So regressive.

What is meant by preferring "people" or "things" in these types of statements is also always highly gendered.

The "things" that girls like do somehow not count as "things" when it comes to statements like "boys like things more". When it's pointed out that plenty of girls are merrily obsessed with things, they say, oh not those sort of things, boy sorts of things. The girl sort of things don't count as things, things are things like things with wheels, or things to make things. Not things to draw things, obviously, because that is different. Lots of girls like that. No, things to make things, like lego. Except pink lego, which counts as preferring people, not things. Boys lego which is blue and red and yellow shows that boys like things. Not people. Of course you know what I mean, you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Maybe you guys should go look up exactly what is meant by "people" and "things to avoid using irrelevant examples like "shopping"

What does one go shopping for if not things?

Well food,

The rest of it is things, I'm fairly sure.

What do you go shopping for, if not things?

• Hello DH I'm doing the shopping list, what things do we need?
• Things? THINGS? I have literally no idea what you mean wife, that is a nonsensensical question. Now go away and read these studies until you understand. Also, observe my people skills

- Oh shit, forgot I was married to a man like the ones in fms' head. That was a dreadful mistake. I would have thought I was high when I made that decision, but that's not possible, as risk taking behaviour of that nature is much less prevalent in females, for reasons relating to long-eared marmosets. Sigh.

Or, radical thought here, as this is a discussion you could say why you think that shopping isn't a reasonable example of women being interested in things?

I am actually lolling at the idea that people don't go shopping to look at and maybe buy things.

Yes that is a good question.

Please can you answer assassinated's question.

I tend to get carried away, she is more succinct.

I'm not addressing any further the straw man of "so women don't like shopping" (hilariously you seem to be unaware that shopping is a very vague and large term, and is something that you can do for other people lol which is probably why women ON AVERAGE put thought/effort into gifts for other people)

Also, all the relevant studies were previously posted, here they are again

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

Also, here's a jezebel article you can read jezebel.com/5837365/male-sex-hormones-may-make-women-more-interested-in-things

"The scientists found that girls and young women with CAH were more interested in careers related to "things" — such as engineering or surgery — than their were non-CAH counterparts. Non-CAH women, meanwhile, were more interested in people-related fields like teaching and social work. Said study author Adriene Beltz,"

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

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.

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

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

How did lobsters get shoved in with male behaviour? Dominance hierarchies require people to read other people. Guess what, humans are highly social animals. In fact, very few mammals live in the gregarious social groups we do. So guess what, people are good at reading other people. What fms doesn't appreciate is the 'standard' view of women:people link is drenched in sexism. Girls like things and boys are interested in people, just maybe not always in the ways scientists expect e.g. shopping and aggression. Offhand I can think of some others: male politicians plotting against their enemies, strategy games that men like, men seducing women; women curating 50+ pairs of shoes, girls collecting Pokémon cards and pens and teddies and....You get my point.

On a more serious issue, I'm actually rather indifferent if there are small innate differences between sexes. I expect there are some. But the damage is done when, from these small foundations a narrative is promulgated and enhanced, then entrenched at school, at work and so on. And then the scientists go back and identify small differences in early life and use them to justify the existence of the big divides .

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

@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

Flytipper: Answer my question, fms. No, please answer my question

fms: Answer MY question, Flytip, you derailer, how dare you!

Sigh. I'll have to call it a day. Had a laugh though.

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

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.

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?

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