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?

@bluebug45

"my opinion based on my experience I find my paid work much easier than looking after a group of children."

As I mentioned earlier, anecdotal experiences are not compelling evidence

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

I could, but I'm not going to because we've all seen your type of posts before and they have been discussed and counter-arguments put forward, none of which the seagull JP fanaticals engage with.

It just makes for a really boring, frustrating thread.

It's much better when it's more of a discussion between people who understand the structural oppression of women (everywhere, including Scandinavia), because then you realise the limitations of the studies posted by you, and can have a much more enlightening discussion.

It is a sign of my age and infirmity that on threads with this sort of person the line from Laugh In repeats in the back of my mind. "Here come da Judge! Here come da Judge".

Someone mentioned nursery workers a few posts back.

Early Years and childcare is quite a new sector. It’s one that has struggled to attract men, usually thought to be due to the low status and low pay. There have been a lot of initiatives to bring men into the sector and it’s still a female-dominated one - at the workface.

What’s interesting is that, at the high end, the situation changes. It seems that men are more than happy to work in Early Years if the position is a dominant one. They are the owners, the entrepreneurs, the editors, the leaders, the government heads.

It’s been fascinating watching them assert themselves.

@fmsfms social science studies unlike natural science studies are generally done on people's experiences, and some such studies are done on very small sample sizes. So to keep coming out with the line ancedotes aren't compelling evidence is meaningless when talking about human experience.

If you actually asked myself and others questions instead of coming out with statements in attempt to make yourself look clever you may come out with better arguments that either support or disapprove your theories.

I think the Nordic country paradox is interesting.

One thing about the Nordic countries is that they have very large public sectors (because of their high rates of tax and high levels of social capital). Workers in the public sector tend to be disproportionately female, while the private sector skews towards men.

The Nordic countries thus have very high female workforce participation rates as so many women work in the public sector, but their gender pay gap record is only so-so (because public sector workers tend to earn less--partly as a trade-off in return for more family-friendly hours and career structures).

@tanith

"What’s interesting is that, at the high end, the situation changes. It seems that men are more than happy to work in Early Years if the position is a dominant one. They are the owners, the entrepreneurs, the editors, the leaders, the government heads. "

I believe the Yellow Dot nursery chain had a pay gap in favour of women. I assume it's because there is an over supply of women staff, therefore women more likely to get promoted. Just one company of course

@bluebug45

"social science studies unlike natural science studies are generally done on people's experiences, and some such studies are done on very small sample sizes. "

If you meant to counter my claim re anecdotes then you've not done a very good job - you've just reminded me why I don't take gender/social studies seriously

It's not my opinion, anecdotal experience is a logical fallacy, hence linking you to an explanation

If everyone could say "well I know someone that " instead of providing compelling evidence then we would never have productive discussions

@fmsfms you have just proved to everyone on the thread you don't understand how most data is collected for social sciences.

Incidentally some people here will have done work using primary sources that disapproves your claims on the pay gap, but you would disregard them claiming they are ancedotes because they aren't a professor - well how do you think professors do their studies?

Oh and you aren't discussing anything. If you were you would be able to see there are other things in their posts, which if you weren't so blinkered, may help you prove or disprove the points you are trying to make.

@bluebug45

Small sample sizes and anecdotes aren't proof of anything. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp.

I'm also not sure why you admit that social science methods involve small samples and expect me to take them seriously, especially when I've already provided many many actual scientific studies and have posted sources that used hundreds of thousands and millions of subjects lol

Once again until it sinks in

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

anecdotal
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality

I've reported this to MNHQ.

It seems quite compulsive behaviour, but even so, it's out of place here, and destroying more threads than just this one.

Compulsive behaviour, like following me from thread to thread.

What do you think MNHQ will make of posts like this one from you:

"Fmsfms, honestly you are an absolute tedious fucking bore. What are you even doing here, droning on at women that don't want to listen to you?" and "This whole thread has been shat on by this seagull." and "fmsfms is talking out of his manly crack." and "if fffffsss comes back waving his willy around mansplaining again"

If they haven't done anything about that one yet, and the others I reported yesterday, what makes you think they'll do anything about me pointing out logical fallacies in peoples posts, how exactly does that breach the code of conduct?

lol

@fmsfms I don't have difficulty in grasping anything.

I find your limited comprehension skills amusing - you are either stupid or trolling - which explains why other posters refuse to engage with you.

You clearly post opinions and argue about them like they are facts. There as I'm happy to state mine are opinions but you attack me for having them.

You are blind to the fact that there is information in others' posts that could support your own arguments.

Oh and when someone claims that "scientific studies" support their ideas it clearly shows they have no idea how such "scientific studies" are done regardless of the area.

You have not bothered to address my arguments, instead you resorted to attacking me directly (ad hominem fallacy), now you're reporting my posts to MNHQ.

Hilarious

Why is a poster being reported to Mumsnet for a different opinion?

Isn't one of the lessons of the trans debacle that free speech shouldn't be squashed?

If you don't agree with the poster, just argue right back.

@bluebug45 "You clearly post opinions and argue about them like they are facts. There as I'm happy to state mine are opinions but you attack me for having them.”

You’re just making stuff up now. I have posted multiple links to scientific studies and supporting articles. I have tried to explain to you (again with supporting links) that anecdotal experiences are not compelling evidence.

You have also pointed out that social science studies use “small sample sizes” (your own words), and some of the studies I posted yesterday used “1.5m 15 year olds” www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001688 and “The researchers used data on 475,000 teenagers across 67 countries or regions for the study” www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

So by all means please explain to me why studies using almost 2m people should be ignored?

@Tanith, that's an interesting observation.

But not surprising. I've watched the same thing happen in elderly care with the privatisation of it, money moves in, corporate job structures get built on top, income streams leveraged with debt piles and the result, a largely financially trashed sector, with women still paid minimum wage and lots of money sucked out by private equity.

@BlueBug45 Anecdotes really help me in pay analysis, the numbers can tell you so much but its the stories that make the most sense of the unexplained percentages. And company/organisation boards need stories to make decisions on, data has to have anecdotal narrative or its not real enough to them.

@kokeshi123 - the poster is a troll.

The poster:

• posts the same links in every thread they post in, - makes opinions and expects others to argue them,
• states that others opinions are not facts so they won't engage,
• doesn't bother reading other people's posts even if parts back up their own opinion, and,
• claims their opinions are backed up by "scientific studies" not understanding how such data is frequently collected.

Incidentally I've not reported their posts to anyone.

@Picassospaintbrush fmsfms is clearly trolling.

@bluebug45

Why don't you scroll back up and see which poster had their posts removed? hint, it wasn't me

Thanks a lot for that facilitated man link @Bowlofbabelfish -- very interesting and hits quite close to home for me. I earn more than DH and we shared parental leave 50/50 (me first, then him for 6 months) but since we're now both back at work full-time and DH has a longer commute, so much of the 'wifework' that we previously shared mostly equally has fallen on my shoulders. We had agreed that he would switch to part-time soon (so I guess I would be a facilitated woman), but he's a bit reluctant to do so. Meanwhile we're both exhausted, and I'm not always able to focus as I should on my work when I'm there.

This is an article I came across about women leaving STEM and with the extra hours involved in wifework in the background, it makes more sense:
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/women-stem-more-likely-burn-out

After all, talking about women preferring people and men preferring things when they're in their teens (or older) can hardly be taken as evidence of a purely biological explanation no matter how large or representative your sample size when socialisation clearly starts way before that.

Very interesting!

moim it’s honestly one of the best threads I’ve seen on here in a long time.

I do work in STEM (and I’m on that thread under a previous name) and I agree totally. The presence of women in academic and lab roles drops sharply when they have children. It’s the demands of wifework plus a system that isn’t flexible enough.
DH and I both work in STEM fields. We are equal in the home but we’ve faced a lot of outside pressure that has needed us to press back against it. The assumption is he has a wife at home and thus is free to drop everything and work anywhere at will. He also gets adoration and mancookies for doingvthevstuff women just do - taking a sick day when the toddler is ill for example. When he does it, he’s an amazing hands on dad. When I do it, I’m shirking and should get a nanny. Depressing stuff.

So the UK Pay Gap Report published today refers to construction as "Skilled construction and building trades" and it is 98.9% male.

So all the talk yesterday of construction being an unskilled trade was clearly inaccurate.

It is correct to say that construction does not require formal qualifications or education, so there are less barriers to entry than other jobs. But this does not mean it is unskilled - clearly there is a trade and techniques that have to be learnt.

Why is construction 98.9% male? That's not all due to the social stigma of it being a mans job surely?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that construction is outside work, in all weather conditions, physically demanding and more dangerous than other jobs (which I got pilloried for trying to explain!)

Forgot to post the link assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706030/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_UK_evidence_from_the_UKHLS.pdf

Of course it is, because women and children never leave the house unless its 19 degrees outside.