629
In Women's Jeans They're 83.7% Smaller
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
629 points (94.7% liked)
solarpunk memes
2659 readers
559 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Come on, dude, there is no female wage gap. It's just that men choose high-salary jobs, like doctor or lawyer, and women choose low-salary jobs, like female doctor or female lawyer.
Time to dig this back up again, I guess:
There literally is no gender "wage gap". Firstly, the "wage gap" is a misnomer for the "earnings gap" (using the correct term makes it more clear that the difference is in average overall earning, not in the pay received per hour of the same work), and assuming whatever gap there is is caused by sexism is literally the same logic as the creationist's 'god of the gaps' argument re the fossil record; with that argument, creationists say X couldn't possibly have evolved into Y, that God was involved. Then when a transitional fossil Z between X and Y is found, the creationist says that God's influence must actually be between X and Z, and Z and Y. And so on ad infinitum, creating a situation where the creationist will always find a way to convince themselves that they're correct, despite the ever-increasing amount of evidence against them.
When it comes to the earnings gap, the actual gap that exists, the cause is assumed to be sexism/misogyny in the same way God is assumed to be how different species came about. But then as time goes on, research is done, and more and more of the gap is accounted for via factors that have nothing to do with discrimination/prejudice/etc., the argument changes to 'whatever gap remains unaccounted for, that must be the part caused by sexism/misogyny!"
That portion being due to sexism/misogyny is always based on pure assumption--there is zero hard evidence that instances of sexism (no one argues there is zero of it) comprise a statistically-significant portion (no one being intellectually honest would argue it's literally zero) of the earnings gap between men and women.
For anyone curious, here's a list of factors that contribute to the gender earnings gap, from the above link:
Note: None of those gaps above apply universally, but reflect overall gender differences that apply in general and on average.
My favorite part of this AEI op-ed (look up the fellows of this august think tank institution if you have a minute) is that the author lists no notes, references, or citations for a single claim in the piece. Now that's how you do it! Start a Hudson Institute it Heritage Foundation and once you've got the banner to put behind a panel of prestigious sounding fellows, bam! You've got the patina of credibility! Back it with a couple hundred million in tax-cheat lobbying endowments and you've got a stew going baby!
My favourite part of that list is that a bunch of reasons are implicitly gendered. E.g. 'men are more likely to have had more continuous years of employment...' - gee I sure wonder why that could be - and apparently there's just no problem there at all in their mind. 'women are more likely to work shorter hours to ~~pick up the slack~~ do things like raise children and make sure their habitation isn't a health hazard. Like maybe some of these bullet points aren't so much counter arguments as exactly the kind of thing we should be targeting when considering the pay gap. Why is it culturally acceptable that women should do all a disproportionate amount of household chores? And let's also note that there's also been research that suggests that wages for specialist fields have historically shifted to reflect the balance of men Vs women in the field. Why is teaching so low paid now? Why is software engineering more highly paid. Stupid list, SMH
What are you targeting, exactly? The ability of women to choose? Because that's the only way you're going to equalize the kind of things you mentioned right before that quote--by giving them as little choice in the matter as men have.
If you compare men to childless, never-married women, the gap essentially vanishes. Women who choose to be less 'all in' professionally bring the female average down. You can't fault employers for favoring and paying more to workers who have more continuous experience etc.
There are no 'culture police' coming around to enforce this. This is decided individually within each relationship. And women are more than capable of leaving men who are not willing to do whatever share of those tasks (up to and including 100%) they want their partner to be doing.
I suspect it's similar to the reason vets are very underpaid compared to other medical professions: being passionate about helping kids/animals opens one up to be easier to take advantage of, re wages. In other words, you love animals so you're willing to be paid less than you might deserve, in order to do the job you want to do.
That said, plenty of teachers are paid quite well, there are a lot of factors that determine whether a given teacher gets what we'd generally consider a 'good' wage.
Because it scales much more, especially as technology advances. Even the best nurse on Earth, for example, can only care for so many human beings in one day. But a piece of good software can serve millions, maybe billions of people. And a millions of people paying you one cent each will enrich you much more than 10 people paying that 'ultimate nurse' a large sum each.
It's a fact of the matter that STEM scales up in ways that fields like teaching and nursing simply can't. That's not misogyny, that's just reality. Another fact of the matter is that the skew toward men in engineering, for example, and the skew toward women in nursing, as an opposite example, are HIGHEST in the countries with the best gender equality laws/culture. Fact is, men and women tend to choose different careers in aggregate, when given the agency to choose. Read up on the Nordic Gender Equality Paradox to learn more.
Too much is being blamed on some sinister big plot by The Men to keep The Women down. There is no such barrier in the Western world in 2024.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/a40772953772eb97fe029c113830c178/tumblr_okz4dl6RAH1tcrpblo1_1280.png
The Hay group analyzed 8.7 million employees across 33 countries, the above being on page 8 of their methodology report ~~(which I unfortunately don't have a current link to, since it looks like their website structure changed since I last checked it out, I was only able to find the white paper)~~, to find the real figures behind the ‘headline’ gender pay gap that crudely takes the average of all working women’s salaries and compares it to the average of all working men’s salaries, with no context.
The rightmost column shows the pay gap that remains when you compare only men and women working in the same company, at the same level, with the same title. A 1.6% average gap that takes into account NONE of the 20 bullet points in my previous comment. That's the starting point. Even if we assumed ALL of that gap was caused by sexism, a 1.6% difference isn't exactly the Colossus of Misogyny that's been assumed to exist.
Though this is all actually an attempt to 'prove the negative'. As I mentioned before, this is a God of the Gaps argument on the part of people who see this earnings gap between the sexes and assume sexism is the one and only cause of all of it. It's on the people pushing that narrative to show evidence of that, not to just claim that any unaccounted for gap is to be assumed to be caused by sexism.
Why are MRA's bigger pussies than people who have actual pussies?
Me: corrects a common misconception
You: You're a big pussy
Okay lol, you're definitely not large mad.
They are trolling you because you didnt realize the first post was sarcastic. Y'all agree.
i will concede to every point in your dumb list: even if everything in there was true, this would still be a systemic problem. so, yeah there is a wage gap.
Of which no one can responsibly say anything beyond "a nonzero amount of sexism exists". Which it obviously does (and in both directions, of course--even I personally have gotten the short end of the stick more than once for being the only male in my department), there will never be literally zero bigotry, sex-related or otherwise. But there is no evidence that there is enough sexism to create an average difference between the sexes large enough to measure, when all known factors for average earnings differences are taken into account (and there are certainly still more non-sex-related factors that we don't know about and haven't accounted for yet).
This means two things:
you're right, i guess i didn't consider:
Try reading the comment you replied to a little harder
All it is is a joke based on the assumption that women are paid less for the same work/job as men. What do you see in it beyond that?
The fact that the wage gap absolutely exist is not an attack on men or men's wages. There's no need to get defensive. We can all work together to fix this problem.
no there's still a gap per-hour for the same work
wow this is news to me i can't wait to see the explanations
The remaining gap is smaller than the margin of error, once you account for every known factor. For example, a man and woman might both have the same job title at the same company, but if the man was working there for a longer period of time, or opts to work more overtime, etc. etc., then naturally he's going to get paid more "for the same work". But about that phrase:
You should understand that, primarily because it'd be absurdly impractical otherwise (no one is going to be examining the individual daily acts of all these people at their jobs), whenever research in this area talks about "same work", they always mean the same job title. So already, that's leaving a lot on the table, of which I gave two examples above (experience and amount of hours/overtime worked).
You have cause and effect backwards. The fields pay more first, then men are shown to gravitate more toward them. This is partly because men tend to be more likely to prioritize raw earning potential over everything else, versus women, who are more likely to prioritize other things, such as time flexibility/convenience (check out the man/woman ratio of graveyard shift jobs for an eye-opener), commute time, etc. And part of the reason for that is the social pressure for men to be 'the provider', which may have lessened in recent decades, but is definitely still a factor to a degree.
Another big factor is that, as men are more likely to prefer 'working with things', and women are more likely to prefer 'working with people', the inescapable fact that 'things' scale up to a degree of magnitude that 'people' never can, means that the industries that men already tend to favor (STEM), will also be the ones that can scale up and pay more as a result of that. An engineer could be able to manage 1 system now, but be able to manage 10 in the future with technological advances, but even the best nurse on the planet is never going to be able to care for orders of magnitude more people than they can presently.
This is a loaded question. Men aren't any more "socially in a position" to do so than women. Women are completely free to choose these occupations. But by and large, they simply don't. The difference in priority I described above is why. Left to make a free choice, men are simply more likely to risk their safety and lives for a bigger paycheck, than women are.
Okay, really now, let's not pretend there are these throngs of women clamoring to be 'let in' to the roofing industry, or the oil fields, and only aren't working in those fields because of the misogyny of the existing workforce. Please, let's return to reality here.
Again, it's choice, not a difference in opportunity. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on that. Left to their own devices, and given full freedom to choose their professional paths, men and women, by and large, do NOT make the same decisions. In fact, the data has shown that the more egalitarian a society is re sex equality, the more pronounced those differences become (for example, the male skew in engineering tilts harder toward male, and the female skew in nursing tilts harder toward female). This is the opposite of what those who did this research expected to discover, such that it's literally called the "gender equality paradox".
Because if you have two jobs that have equivalent pay and prerequisites, but one is more dangerous than the other, no one will choose it over the safer option, obviously. You have to pay more for dangerous jobs, or no one will do them, unless they literally have no other choice.
This is the 'working with things' vs. 'working with people' general preference difference between men and women, in action.
Once more, you're twisting things. Point 17 doesn't say men are more ABLE, it says they're more WILLING. Difference.
no, it isn't
you know, other than like researchers
genuinely very funny that you just wrote over 200 words to restate your original very bad arguments
this is circular af
sorry i made the critical error of "assuming you had an actual point to make"
unless you're actually out here trying to make a case that FEEEEMAALEESS are just genetically predisposed to being scared of making money
you're right the second x chromosome makes them completely incapable of laying tiles upon other tiles
genuinely what point do you think you're making?
are you actually unironically trying to claim that there aren't incredibly real social barriers to entry for women trying to get into the construction industry, for example?
wow super weird that the gender class that isn't expected to care for the next generation for 15-18 years is treated as more sacrificial i wonder how that could have happened i guess science will never know
i don't really have anything to say here other than the fact that this just straight up isn't true
a lot easier to argue for a point when you're willing to just make shit up, i guess
just casually ignoring the side of the risk where you die and make no money, i guess
i actually love that you think everybody can succeed in what is almost by definition the zero-sum game of venture capitalism it's very sweet
wow i can't wait to see the evidence that you provide to prove this is genetic and not social predisposition it will turn the field on its head
oh what's that? you don't have that evidence
WEIRD
oh weird please could you link the study that sufficiently justifies men are more willing rather than more able to relocate?
"When the BLS reports that women working full-time in 2020 earned 82.3% of what men earned working full-time, that is very much different from saying that women earned 82.3% of what men earned for doing exactly the same work while working the exact same number of hours in the same occupation, with exactly the same educational background and exactly the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and with exactly the same marital and family (e.g., number of children) status....once we start controlling individually for the many relevant factors that affect earnings, e.g., hours worked, age, marital status, and having children, most of the raw earnings differential disappears."
Done with your ignorant "nuh uh" garbage. Go ahead and cling to your misogyny boogeyman, you're clearly more interested in maintaining your own assumptions and biases, than the truth. This nonsense is literally equivalent to the creationist "god of the gaps" fallacious argument, where any empty spot in the evolutionary record is assumed by the creationist to be 'God did it, right there'. Then, whenever we find a transitional fossil Z between X and Y, suddenly God's role is no longer between X and Y, but between X and Z, and Z and Y, ad infinitum.
The bottom line is that there is literally zero evidence that any statistically-significant portion of the gap between the sexes' average early earnings IS caused by sexism. This is just something people like you assume, because you're too simple-minded to consider that a difference in outcome between two demographics could be caused by anything but bigotry toward one of them. And it's another level of simple-mindedness to continue to cling to that assumption even after you've been made aware of well over a dozen factors that account for various chunks of the gap, making it clear that 'turns out there can in fact be other reasons for this disparity to exist'. The misogyny 'God' in that ever-shrinking gap--the straw you cling to constantly shortening. Ideologue narrative-clinging is pitiable.
I'm not going to entertain your "prove it's not" nonsense, that's not how it works. Enjoy your delusional boogeyman hunt, I guess.
P.S. Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality? Like Saudi Arabia, where women only recently became legally allowed to drive, and Egypt, which has the second highest rate of sexual harassment on Earth. Whoops, another massive wrench in your delusional assumption, how about that?
ah yes because you're backing up everything you say with sources, and not just spouting shit
this is the first time you've tried to cite something to back yourself up, and the thing you chose to cite agrees with me.
"most of the raw earnings differential": you know that "most" doesn't mean "all", right?
so what we have here is you saying something that's wrong, me telling you it's wrong, you proving to both of us that it's wrong, and then you complaining that i'm telling you it's wrong
either you're utterly inept enough to get burden of proof completely ass-backwards, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it here because you're arguing in bad faith
obviously i wouldn't accuse you of being utterly inept because it would be rude so i would ask that you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the high standards set by the rest of your "wage gap is a myth" folks
to clarify: you're making the claim that women are genetically predisposed to behave in a certain way, so it's you who gets to back that up
i'm pretty sure i know the exact study you're citing (well not citing, vaguely gesturing towards) which is why i'm so confident that it's nonsense
if it's the one i'm thinking of, they completely misuse a statistical indicator so badly that they literally invert the trend in their data
i'll make this really simple for you. you need to make a convincing case that either:
otherwise, we've just demonstrated systemic sexism present in the wage gap
(i know you won't reply to this because you know that you can't make that convincing case; this is more for the benefit of future viewers)
I guess all those highly skilled researchers around the world looking at different sectors in different countries must have just been wrong in exactly the same way, then. Boy will the feel dumb when they find out