A problem with women's equal rights claims

Oh Lord.
At some point, telling women what their natural gender tendencies are becomes not only dubious argument, but slapstick self-targeting - like lighting a match to see into your gas tank.

Try acquiring some experience in asking women what those IT departments look like.

You may find it ridiculous, but it's historical fact and apparent current circumstance.

In denial, yes. And they have been doing that for a long, long time.

Maybe not, but it does establish the burden of proof.

It's reasoning about likelihoods from evidence.

You do see them in supervision, management, and ownership of agribusiness.

So you've never seen a business in which the lower paid employees were all, or almost all, women, but the higher paid were all, or almost all, men.

Really.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why all this speculation? Why not look at the real-life data? Facts and figures are available.
From those facts and figures, we may begin to infer some - some! - motives and influential factors.
For example, many American magnates still cherish the image of the 50's suburban family: father is the breadwinner; mother stays home. And that's how it ought to be. He may even think that a woman choosing to work alongside men is just being frivolous, and if she's demanding to work at traditionally masculine jobs, she's downright impertinent and shouldn't be encouraged. The underlying assumption is: she doesn't really need as much money as her male counterpart.
How many women are the sole support of their child(ren) and/or infirm elderly parents and/or disabled spouses? In such circumstances, they're in no position to hold out for more pay. And it's not like the salary range casually tossed into the want-ad were firm or binding, nor is he pay-schedule for the company posted anywhere. Prospective employees are not told how much their colleagues make; indeed, employers make a big quasi-religious taboo against divulging one's salary.
Those are two common contributing factors. There are more.
Nobody really thinks only of the bottom line - not even the accountants.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Duh, maybe it's time to grow up.

You say "facts and figures" but haven't posted any?

Are you a coward and a liar?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Complicating things, we have a serious stat analysis published in Science regarding gender anomalies in academic hiring in France: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2...-subjects-hiring-favors-women-teachers-france

Note the biased presentation: the study actually found that the seriously underrepresented sex in a given field (not "women") was favored during the oral interview phase - men, in literature; women, in mathematics; for example.

I'm leaning toward artifact of some kind.

Anyway, it lines up with other stuff to indicate that the hiring point may not be the place to address.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/women-best-men-stem-faculty-hiring-study

 

Well, the large number of successful discrimination lawsuits would indicate that there IS a more general problem, would it not?

============
Walmart lawsuit (re gender discrimination in USA)

In 2001, six female employees of Walmart filed suit against their company in US federal court alleging that Walmart discriminated against them in salary, bonuses and training. After extensive discovery and oral argument, in 2003 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint requesting that the court certify the case as a class action on behalf of current and former female Walmart employees maintaining that the discrimination faced by the original plaintiffs was systematic in nature and affected all women employed by Walmart. In June of 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The lawsuit represents approximately 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees, which makes it the largest workplace bias case in US history. Walmart appealed the class certification decision.

In February of 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling granting class action status to this gender discrimination lawsuit.
(from business-humanrights.org)
============

I said no such thing. Both are cases of societal expectations dictating salaries. "Everyone knows that blacks are lazy." "Everyone knows that women can't handle the pressure." It may be implicit. It may not even be conscious. But both provably exist.

Nope. They (i.e. the men responsible for the bias against equal women's pay) are assuming that women will make their company less profitable.

When a woman of equal experience gets the same offers as a man.

How do we know this isn't happening? Because when employers can't tell the sex of an applicant, average offers go up.

From AAUW:
==========
In STEM Fields, Many Employers Hire “John” over “Jennifer”
June 11, 2015

. . .one simple study exposed how adversely gender stereotypes and biases affect hiring outcomes for women in science. The study, which AAUW highlights in our research, found that women are being shortchanged in more ways than one.

For the study, researchers from Yale University asked more than 100 science faculty members at academic institutions across the country to evaluate one of two student résumés. The résumés were identical except for one small part: The candidate’s name was either John or Jennifer. Despite both candidates having the exact same qualifications and experience, science faculty members were more likely to perceive John as competent and select him for a hypothetical lab manager position.

And it didn’t stop there. Female and male science faculty members alike offered John a higher salary than they did Jennifer and were more willing to offer him mentoring opportunities.
. . . .

Another study by researchers at Columbia University, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago found that participants acting as employers systematically underestimated the mathematical performance of women compared with men. The result? The experiment’s employers hired lower-performing men over higher-performing women for mathematical work.
============

Correct. However, when two identical candidates differ only in sex, and the woman is always offered a lower salary, then that DOES imply that the differential is due to discrimination (whether conscious or not.) When the lower-performing man is hired OVER the higher-performing women, that is even more indicative of discrimination.

Are you seriously claiming that your acquaintances who are business owners would rather hire an incompetent, irresponsible employee for $20 an hour rather than a competent, responsible employee for $30 an hour? (i.e. salary is the only consideration) If so they are foolish indeed, and you would be better served with a different sample pool.

Most successful businesses offer salaries commensurate with a candidate's (perceived) skills, experience and track record.

There are plenty of garment shops throughout the world that employ primarily or exclusively women.

 

Duh, what would I have to be afraid of or lie about?
I'm suggesting a possible approach to a question in which someone has expressed an interest. I'm not offering a definitive answer, and I'm certainly not volunteering to do his research!

 

You've already failed.

You said 'research'.

 

I wasn't taking a test.
Who died and made you teacher, anyway?

 

Here we have a field that was traditionally dominated by women. But men entered the field and started making more!

"But looking at salary data, I learned something new on "National Equal Pay Day" this week: Even in nursing, which is dominated by women—male nurses are outnumbered almost 10:1—men make more. The average salary per year in 2011 was nearly $61,000 for a male nurse, and just $51,100 for a female nurse.

...Why is that? The data seemed especially striking because women don't just make up the overwhelming share of staff nurses, but represent about 90% of Chief Nursing Officers, too

"Anecdotally, I hear that many men enter the “high tech” nursing specialties—such as critical care," the Center's Jennifer Stewart told me. "These are often higher paid nursing specialties."
"Men also tend to aim for higher levels of education," Katherine Virkstis pointed out. "There are more men in RN programs than in LPN programs, and more men in BSN programs than in RN diploma or ADN programs."
(These trends are seen in Census data: Ben Casselman, writing at the Wall Street Journal, noted in 2012 that "male nurses are more likely than female nurses to have a doctoral degree, more likely to work evening or night shifts, and more likely to be immigrants." Meanwhile, "female nurses are more likely to work in doctor's offices or schools, and are far more likely to be over age 65—a reflection of nursing's status as a female-dominated profession until recently.")

There are other reasons that might not show up in an economic report, Center researchers suggested. Mused Joan Meadows, who worked as a hospital's Chief Nursing Officer before joining the Nursing Executive Center, men get fast-tracked into management positions. And men also may gravitate toward "oddball" positions that pay well, says Phil Beauchene (who has served in a variety of nursing roles, including CNO of a large, multi-specialty physician group). For example, men might become flight nurses on medevac helicopters, Beauchene points out.

And there’s one more perplexing fact about nursing salary data. Female nurses may get paid less, but on one measure they come out slightly ahead, Anne Terry notes: They're more content with their lot."
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/blog/2014/04/why-do-male-nurses-get-paid-more

The short story is, men have outperformed women so they make more.They moved into a field dominated by women and did better than women, even though they tend to work for women. Perhaps the last highlighted sentence provides a nice summary. Men are more driven to advance.

I can remember when people generally laughed at the idea of a male nurse.

I came up with this link by simply asking myself what field was dominated by women but has begun to accept men. That should be revealing, I figured. I was right!

 

So you, for some reason, think that women live on a different planet than men? That women are not subject to exactly the same systematic pressures that cause men to devalue the work of women?

 

Reminds me of the argument "whites are smarter and harder-working than blacks, so of _course_ they make more money and are in higher positions."