The Earning Potential of Women

[Ergeheilalt]

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/do-women-earn-less-men

This video is excellent - very well put together. What do you think?

[Harry]

It's not near as helpful as I'd hoped. I don't desire any women in my life, but if picking up one or two dames will get me a few extra Benjamins, I'm all for it. I can maintain a couple in the house I'm in now, and there are plenty of customers nearby.

[Harry]

As for the actual premise of the video, this is something I've seen with my own two eyes for a long time, and I've had several conversations about it with friends and family. My own sister has complained about falling behind men, when the one and only reason she did was because she decided to take a very extended leave when she had her daughter. For the time she actually put in, she got paid fairly and promoted fairly, but for some reason thinks that the many, many months, or longer I don't really recall, that she took off above and beyond the average should somehow be credited back to her.

I've been looking at a lot of information lately from some government sources regarding income, and women in particular, and it's readily apparent that most women in the workforce choose to take a good bit of time off for giving birth. This I understand. It would be insane and wrong to expect women to show back up in a week or two. But many, like my sister, take rather extended leaves that take them out of the workforce completely, sometimes for years. No, you don't get credit for that.

[cyphersmith]

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/do-women-earn-less-men

This video is excellent - very well put together. What do you think?

Damn you, I've lost an hour already at that site, and I'm going to lose more.

[shiningbrow]

Shoot him. It's a lie. There are women doing the same jobs as men who have no children, take no time off and still get paid less. Bullshit economist with the nice calm "women are hysterics" delivery. It's nonsense. I'll leave it at that. Don't get me started.

[Cat of Ulthar]

Shoot him. It's a lie. There are women doing the same jobs as men who have no children, take no time off and still get paid less. Bullshit economist with the nice calm "women are hysterics" delivery. It's nonsense. I'll leave it at that. Don't get me started.

I hear you, sister.

[Enk]

I'm interested in the stats on that (women making less than men even when they choose career over children). In my experience, it doesn't hold true in my profession (for people under the age of 40).

[Ergeheilalt]

Shoot him. It's a lie. There are women doing the same jobs as men who have no children, take no time off and still get paid less.

I didn't get the feel he was intentionally maligning anyone. His point is a good one - there are a variety of factors that are detrimental to the earning potential of women, many of which may have a sexual discriminatory basis but are not directly discriminatory.

Does sexual discrimination happen? Yes, of course. But sexual discrimination does not appear to be the sole factor for why the earning potential of a woman is lower than that of a man.

[Brynja]

I hear you, sister.

Shoot him. It's a lie. There are women doing the same jobs as men who have no children, take no time off and still get paid less. Bullshit economist with the nice calm "women are hysterics" delivery. It's nonsense. I'll leave it at that. Don't get me started.




Truth.


In my profession it isn't an issue but I know in others it is, the fight isn't over.

[cyphersmith]

Shoot him. It's a lie. There are women doing the same jobs as men who have no children, take no time off and still get paid less. Bullshit economist with the nice calm "women are hysterics" delivery. It's nonsense. I'll leave it at that. Don't get me started.

Umm, it's not a lie. It's fact. The income disparity is no longer based on discrimination in most places. The income disparity is based on the choices that women make in the work place. He pointed out that with the same qualifications, women make 98% of what men do. Those qualifications happen to include years of experience. A woman and a man of the same age are not necessarily going to have the same amount of experience if the woman has children. In all likelihood, that woman will have taken time off of work, often measured in years, to raise those children. So, all other things equal, that lesser amount of experience is going to get the woman a lower salary.

By the same token, society still has pretty well defined gender roles, and many of the jobs that women do are lower paying jobs. Now, for a number of those jobs, such as teachers and nurses, I think we are undervaluing them. However, this isn't because it's a woman doing the job. It's because we're undervaluing the job.

This is a societal problem, not a workplace problem.

And where the fuck did you get the "women are hysterics" from?

[Brynja]

98% is progress but it isn't parity. I want my two dollars.

[shiningbrow]

Women get paid about the same, but they don't get promoted as often into the higher paid jobs in my profession. They get shunted into temporary, part time stuff, or into less prestigious institutions that pay less and demand longer hours. Saying that women get paid equally when they have less opportunities for advancement and not an equal bite at the apple belies the assertion that they just make different choices. There is so much bias in that video that it beggars belief. Just more sexism masquerading as science.

[Schizm]

I think it's interesting how the argument in this thread is clearly divided on gender lines.

[Cat of Ulthar]

I've even noticed it in low-paying, traditionally female jobs like call-centre work. Call-centres love men, because customers trust them more than women, so they'll offer higher pay.

Another factor I've seen in play very often could be said to be the women's fault: Men negotiate more aggressively. Which often means that people who want a job because they care about it, and don't negotiate pay, earn less than people who didn't care so much about the job and thus bargained harder, with a risk of not being hired. For some reason, the first category is mostly women, and the second men, as far as I have witnessed.

And Schizm: I noticed that too, and I think that often men don't notice women getting paid less than them, whereas women do notice men earning more than them. Funny, that.

[Brynja]

I have had to adopt more male characteristics in the areas of negotiation and certain types of situation requiring more forceful diplomacy. I see that as no different when men are asked to adopt a more sensitive attitude toward things they really don't give a hoot about.

Adapt. Evolve. Excel.

When I negotiated my steps here coming in I was offered to start at the bottom. I countered with 4 years. He said no. I laughed, rose and said no, that I had a Masters Degree, 4 years teaching in a catholic school that took the same summative assessments NY public schools took, here were the scores, and good day.


I got all 4 of my years.

[The Winslow]

By the same token, society still has pretty well defined gender roles, and many of the jobs that women do are lower paying jobs. Now, for a number of those jobs, such as teachers and nurses, I think we are undervaluing them. However, this isn't because it's a woman doing the job. It's because we're undervaluing the job.

And the job is undervalued because it's a feminized job. I vaguely remember some studies showing that when professions once exclusively masculine started to become more and more feminized, the wages started decreasing... In a first time only on average, because women were paid less; but in a second time men's wages took a cut too. "If you do a girl's job, you'll get a girl's pay" being the message.

[cyphersmith]

I've even noticed it in low-paying, traditionally female jobs like call-centre work. Call-centres love men, because customers trust them more than women, so they'll offer higher pay.

Another factor I've seen in play very often could be said to be the women's fault: Men negotiate more aggressively. Which often means that people who want a job because they care about it, and don't negotiate pay, earn less than people who didn't care so much about the job and thus bargained harder, with a risk of not being hired. For some reason, the first category is mostly women, and the second men, as far as I have witnessed.

And Schizm: I noticed that too, and I think that often men don't notice women getting paid less than them, whereas women do notice men earning more than them. Funny, that.

I've worked in call centers, with my wife working at the same call center at the same time, and we were paid equally. There was no difference between her pay and mine, and we were hired at the same time, neither of us with call center experience at the time. This is, of course, anecdotal evidence. Also, completely different country.

As far as the aggressive negotiation, that is certainly a difference between men and women (though not something that matters in call center work, everyone starts at the same pay level for the same job, at least at the entry level). But that difference isn't always rewarded. People will fail to get jobs when they are too aggressive. Don't mistake the willingness to negotiate more aggressively as not caring about the job. Men are much more likely to peg their own worth to their salary. They don't want to be paid less than they think they are worth, so they negotiate harder.

[Morbidity]

This is all very well but doesn't explain why childless women are under-represented in senior management positions etc. I've seen research on this, but am currently too busy to dig it up. I think it's not that women are underpaid for the position that they hold, but that they are less likely to get the promotion, because they are less likely to push for it.

I found this paper to be quite interesting.
http://www.finsia.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=2010&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15224

[Ergeheilalt]

I think it's not that women are underpaid for the position that they hold, but that they are less likely to get the promotion, because they are less likely to push for it.

I took a class on Women in Math, Science, and Engineering in college (ostensibly to fill a GE, mostly to meet women... but I wasn't the only guy to have that idea). We spent about half the class looking at why women are less like to pursue STEM field careers and why their advancement is slower/less significant that that of their male counterparts.

The key difference I recall was willingness to take risks. Boys at a young age are encouraged to take risks. Girls are encouraged to play it safe. Thus when they go to math or science classes, where you're either right or wrong,they're less willing to volunteer answers that could be wrong. Thus the stay quiet and can miss out on the eureka moments. This same factor is an issue when it comes to workplace advancement. I know a brilliant engineer who has been told repeatedly she needs to be more outspoken and for that reason, she hasn't been given any advanced management or bidding responsibilities. It wasn't until this last year that she started speaking up and kicking ass. Now she manages as small segment of the company in a mid-level engineer role.

[shiningbrow]

Ergeheilalt, you make some interesting observations. In teaching, I noticed distinctly different behaviors between male and female students in discussions. I'd see women either keep quiet, or make mild gestures to introduce a topic only to be talked over by male students. Most of the women were too polite or shy to push back. When I taught, I made a point of making the men wait their turns, forcing them to stop interrupting and making sure the female students could speak. I drew on my own experiences in grad seminars when I'd basically be halfway through a sentence only to have a male colleague begin speaking as if I weren't even in the room. This infuriated me, as I'd often just clam up and sit steaming in frustration. And I can never recall an instructor intervening on my behalf in such situations.
When I began teaching, I determined not to allow it in my classes and I don't. But the real world is not like that and your comments certainly jibe with my experiences. I certainly can be aggressive and assertive when need be, but nobody wants to come across as a shrill or a bitch and aggressive behavior in women is all too often categorized in that way. There's a sort of double whammy levied against women in that respect.

I see plenty of female aggression in the world, because I like to watch COPS, so I have no illusions that all women are nice polite socialized shrinking violets, but I think there are socialization factors that work to their disadvantage in the workplace. This does not mean that there is not also institutionalized sexism (as Cybersmith had observed above). I would have pursued more of a science-related career if the sole calculus instructor in my college had been willing to teach me the subject instead of flirting with the other female students in the class.

[Morbidity]

I think Shiningbrow has highlighted the issue. If senior people are men, then do they run meetings, etc such that you are more likely to have your opportunity to shine if you are outwardly aggressive and pushy. Thus are men more likely to be promoted because currently men are running meetings, doing the choosing, etc. If more senior people were women, would meetings etc be run slightly differently which might mean that it is women who shine and men are instead seen as discourteous and overly aggressive. I have exaggerated here for effect. Essentially I guess my point is, that if in a meeting a woman speaks up and has a male colleague speak over her then at the end of the meeting the male will have made an impression and the woman won’t. If in the meeting when the male colleague speaks over the female the chairperson stops them and allows the female to make her point … if this happens repeatedly then at the end of the meeting you’d remember the points the female made, but also the fact that the males were attempting to interrupt and prevent her from making those points. What I’m trying to say is that women have the responsibility to push their own careers, but they shouldn’t be disadvantaged because virtually everyone the next tier up is male. I hope you get the point I’m trying to make, because I don’t think I’ve expressed it well.

[Name Lips]

Women don't want to be perceived as bitches, but men seem to have no problem being perceived as assholes.

[Brynja]

Women don't want to be perceived as bitches, but men seem to have no problem being perceived as assholes.

Not all women have this issue, I for one do not.

It is a fine line between being too aggressive, the trick is becoming one of the boys if you can.

Once you hit that spot you find alot more opens up.

[Cat of Ulthar]

Not all women have this issue, I for one do not.

It is a fine line between being too aggressive, the trick is becoming one of the boys if you can.

Once you hit that spot you find alot more opens up.

The way for a woman to be successful is to be like a man...

[Pigs in Space]

No opinions, but some random insights:

Women get paid about the same, but they don't get promoted as often into the higher paid jobs in my profession. They get shunted into temporary, part time stuff, or into less prestigious institutions that pay less and demand longer hours. Saying that women get paid equally when they have less opportunities for advancement and not an equal bite at the apple belies the assertion that they just make different choices. There is so much bias in that video that it beggars belief. Just more sexism masquerading as science.
There are very few women in my profession, but for those that exist, this is not my experience. For the 10% or less of people in the workplace, they are equally represented by women at most echelon's in the management chain.

But, 10% or less are women.


Another factor I've seen in play very often could be said to be the women's fault: Men negotiate more aggressively. Which often means that people who want a job because they care about it, and don't negotiate pay, earn less than people who didn't care so much about the job and thus bargained harder, with a risk of not being hired. For some reason, the first category is mostly women, and the second men, as far as I have witnessed.

It's expected though right? I'm a manager, and I have a budget. If I do a yearly performance review and you don't ask for more money... wtf? It's expected, right?

I usually ask for 2x more than I expect to receive. It's... the game.


When I negotiated my steps here coming in I was offered to start at the bottom. I countered with 4 years. He said no. I laughed, rose and said no, that I had a Masters Degree, 4 years teaching in a catholic school that took the same summative assessments NY public schools took, here were the scores, and good day.


I got all 4 of my years.
Yeh! Nice.

(Clearly I have done statistical analysis on this to prove it's correctness:)
I went through the first 8 or so years of my career with a similar group of 4-5 guys - similar age, similar starting salary, similar successes and failures. We all rode the waves of success and failure in the first part of the naughties in the semiconductor industry.
Out of that group, I think I am the one who blows his horn the most, most aggressively pursues a pay rise and complains in general the most. And over that period, (anecdotally) I think I ended up ~10% better paid. And at that time, we're talking only several K difference in a yearly salary. Hardly anything in a week. Beer money.
Now that's not earth shattering, but it's significant - you average that over a 40 year career, and now we're talking 50% salary difference.

Incidentally, I'm also the first of that group to quit and move companies, for what was a ~15% pay rise.

This is all very well but doesn't explain why childless women are under-represented in senior management positions etc. I've seen research on this, but am currently too busy to dig it up. I think it's not that women are underpaid for the position that they hold, but that they are less likely to get the promotion, because they are less likely to push for it.
I have no idea. I would suggest that it's the aggressive thang.

Women don't want to be perceived as bitches, but men seem to have no problem being perceived as assholes.
What?

Stop smoking crack. I'm trying to sell you shit for a living. Trying to convince you I can build the system to help you, and that I'm the opposite of an asshole - I will work with you, call you, respond to your emails, love you, rock you to sleep at night, and together we'll solve your problems.

If I was an asshole, I'd be fucked. (as is evidenced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcAaertdaQk))

Now, pay me 500k, and the dev team is on it.

Not all women have this issue, I for one do not.

It is a fine line between being too aggressive, the trick is becoming one of the boys if you can.

Once you hit that spot you find alot more opens up.
I'll give you my advice.
- be randomly passionate about shit, and they'll join you, and then be really way into their shit (same way you score in a bar, I'd probably make a good gay guy).
- talk about your injuries, sporting or otherwise.

I've seen some of the older management guys bond over their Tradie background and their apprenticeships and how they've moved from welding shit on a train, or soldering radio's for the army. Good if your in your 50's.

For us mid thirty types, we smile at each other while this shit is going on and bond over having gone to university and when "gmail first came out".






And now unslolicited randomness:
On Thursday our company ran a "user group meeting" where our customers visited our office for a day to talk to us about the products, the direction we were going in, usability issues, etc. We put on food, slideshows, etc.

In the user feedback sessions, the two most involved and vocal people pushing feedback to us were the two women in the 25 or so customers. Both are white collar business analyst types (both tackling and managing some insane/cool difficult problems), both owned the floor for that period - after lunch from 2-3pm ish. The talk focussed a lot on what they want to do, and features to add/develop. They loved the idea I would work with them to help them.

And with the exception of one enormously fat IT guy who liked almost everything I said, those two ladies are going to be the ones who I talk to most when planning our software team's work over the next few months.

[Enk]

This is all very well but doesn't explain why childless women are under-represented in senior management positions etc...

There's a much more simple explanation: it takes 30 to 40 years on average to make it into senior management, and childless women only really got on even footing about 20 years ago.

A better comparison would be to look at middle management.

[Brynja]

The way for a woman to be successful is to be like a man...

Yep.

It is what it is, and I don't apologize for successfully negotiating the obstacles in front of me.

[Cat of Ulthar]

Yep.

It is what it is, and I don't apologize for successfully negotiating the obstacles in front of me.
I'm not saying you are doing something wrong, I am saying something's wrong with a society in which women and feminine qualities are consistently undervalued.

[Brynja]

I think it is slowly changing but it would be too costly for me to rely on that change.

[Droid101]

I've even noticed it in low-paying, traditionally female jobs like call-centre work. Call-centres love men, because customers trust them more than women, so they'll offer higher pay.
LOL

A girl I know calls into Victoria's Secret customer service lines now and again. Whenever she gets a woman that answers, she is sad. Why is she sad? Because the men are always nicer. They will always try to accomodate her needs better. They "Don't care" as much; they just want to make her happy and get her off the phone. Whereas the women are more "bitchy" and never help in as timely a manner, or simply don't offer the help at all, and she has to call back in hopes of getting a man on the line.

I'd pay the man more too, if he was doing a better job.

There's a much more simple explanation: it takes 30 to 40 years on average to make it into senior management, and childless women only really got on even footing about 20 years ago.

A better comparison would be to look at middle management.

I work in IT. Our structure is:

CIO->Directors->Managers->Employees.

Our CIO is a woman. She is new, she just replaced the old CIO (who was a woman [and Canadian.... weird]).

We have five directors (infrastructure, finance, project management, HR, application development). All five are women.

We have many managers. I'd say about 50% are women, 50% are men.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

[Droid101]

I should add the senior management level I guess. CEO, CFO, CIO, COO

50/50 men to women.

[Hatter]

I work in a technical field and I would suggest that women are definitely under-represented as engineers, though management has a good mix. Also, there's a lot of sexism from customers who seem to think that women can't have technical skills, it's quite infuriating for me to witness even as a man.

[Janos]

I'm not saying you are doing something wrong, I am saying something's wrong with a society in which women and feminine qualities are consistently undervalued.

I think you're looking at it wrong.

It's aggression that's rewarded. It's a desire to push and succeed for more. That's neither a male nor female trait inherently*. Men have traditionally learned to be more aggressive, women more passive**. Culturally, both genders embraced traits that suited their traditional roles.

Now those roles are more mixed. That means that both groups have to act more like the other. Men have had to develop a softer/more passive side, and women have had to develop more aggressive tendencies. Equality is not just about penalizing one group, it's about both sides adapting. Men have adapted massively in the past 30 years to changing environments in the workplace. Now women need to adapt as well.

It's not inherently a loss of femininity unless you define femininity as passivity/conformity. And if you do so, you're placing the burden of society changing solely on one gender, rather than a bridge between the two. It's not that women have to become more masculine, it's that women have to become more aggressive, and by doing so we redefine both gender definitions.

*Baring a discussion on testosterone/hormones, which is getting beyond the topic.
**For simplicity, I'm using aggressive to mean traditional male cultural personality traits, and passive to mean traditional female cultural personality traits.

[Harry]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

As well, I hate to chime in with this, since it is strictly anecdotal. I avoided posting it before. But in my field of work, men don't stand a chance unless they really stand out for something special. Most people in my job are women, and when Kroger bought us, most of the women were retained in similar positions. All of the men were demoted, like me. In the business overall, many women excel. No, it hasn't always been that way, but if you look at the last twenty years, lots has been accomplished in rectifying past issues. There are women at every level in every store. The VP who I talked to a couple of weeks ago, the highest ranking Kroger person I've met, was a woman. At the department head level, women outnumber men in every store, so I figure in the long run things might go the other direction and women will soon dominate overall.

But forget the present - in every business I've been in barring one - the lumber business - women have made up the bulk of my supervisors. From about 1983 to now, right now, I've answered almost exclusively to women. I've always been outranked, I've always been commanded, I've always been an assistant to a woman, and in many cases that was a happy and great experience. A couple of times I've had horrible women bosses. And you know what? Despite the fact that almost all my bosses in 35 years in retail have been women, because of those two, I've been tagged a "male chauvinist". Despite the fact that 35 years I happily answered to women, but complained about two in a three year span, I'm a bigot. [I should note - neither of these women were retained in their jobs, they were cut loose eventually.]

There's a lot of man-hatred that goes on that goes on freely and without criticism, but god forbid you criticism a female boss! I know, that's off topic, but while some areas of the country and some businesses still need some work for equality, don't condemn the whole damn nation and all men over that damned two percent.

[Megamieuwsel]

All fine and dandy for the physically 'easy" jobs, now take a look at REAL work.
Y'know; where your hands get dirty, where the stuff is CREATED/maintained that you desk-slackers RELY on.
The REAL techs: Mechanics, construction, that stuff.

It's shitty pay for men.
It's even shittier pay for woman.

And with good reason:
Woman DON'T MATCH UP!

These jobs, the very BASIC of what society runs on, require a combination of both mental AND physical prowess.
And like it or not; 99% of the time woman fall short in the latter department. Those that don't: Scratch the first part for another 80%(at least...)
The ones that get through: Overcompensating bitches that whine about how men get the better share, WHILE STILL NOT MATCHING UP AND EXPECTING SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CUNT...
(And most of 'em are fugly too...)

25 years of experience in the field.
Roughly speaking some 100 woman encoutered in it(Which is WAAAAYYYY above average..)due to my job-hopping carreer.
NO EXEPTIONS!
not ONE...

The genetical part: Men are physically stronger over all.
The Social part(Some will argue it's genetical as well, but I'll stick with it being due to upbringing) : Men tend to excell in "abstract thinking", ie- problem Solving. Also often referred to as "Technical Insight" depending on the field of work.

Ergo Conclusio: When it comes to a combination of mental AND physical encumberance, woman will lose out to men.
I doubt that'll ever change and I don't think I'd like it IF it does.

[Aloysius]

All fine and dandy for the physically 'easy" jobs, now take a look at REAL work.
Y'know; where your hands get dirty, where the stuff is CREATED/maintained that you desk-slackers RELY on.
The REAL techs: Mechanics, construction, that stuff.


When I read you, it feels like we are still in the middle age and that robots, computers and hydro-pneumatic systems have not been invented.
Likewise, it feels like all construction/mechanic work requires more strength than dexterity. I see more and more women working on the roadsides, while they were none when I was young, even when it's about digging trenches or spreading bitumen. Both them and the men they work with just don't work like it was years ago. You don't need strength to pilot a bulldozer.

[Dacke]

I think you're looking at it wrong.

It's aggression that's rewarded. It's a desire to push and succeed for more.
That's a big part of it. Men are, more-or-less inherently, more aggressive than women (as to how much of that is biological and how much is cultural, that's a discussion for another time). This aggression can often pay off, and when it does it pays off big-time. But it can also lead to spectacular failures, which is why the US has 15 times as many male prisoners as female ones.

However, the way the economic system of rewards is set up, the potential benefits of getting ahead are a lot bigger than the potential penalties of getting behind. That is, the person who's on the median is a lot closer to the first quartile than he is to the third quartile. This will inflate the averages of how much money men make.

[Megamieuwsel]

robots, computers and hydro-pneumatic systems
And who's building those?...

[Aloysius]

And who's building those?...

Mostly robots.

[Megamieuwsel]

dream on...

[Ergeheilalt]

Mostly robots.

My friend, I get where you're coming from. On an assembly line where typically there is one widget being put on a a bigger gizmo at a time, you're totally right. All the electro-mechanical equipment really helps out.

What I think Mega is talking about is out in the "wilds" as it were. Have you ever been in an automotive shop? Watch somebody manhandle a transmission replacement or remove and align four tires?

The way that mechanics are billed (at least in the US, at large dealerships), you need to be quick if you want to make money. A customer comes in with squeeky brakeshoes. They want new ones. The job pays 0.4 hours. IE: The average tech with the average brakeshoe replacement takes 25 minutes to do the swap. Regardless of what you find in there, if you're just replacing the brakeshoe, you're getting paid for 25 minutes of work. If you're good (thorough but fast, quick but detail oriented with no "go-backs") you make a little extra money if you get it done in 20 minutes. You get that extra money because for a job that paid 25 minutes, you got it done in 20 and can get on to your next paying project. If you're slow and take 30 minutes, you're still only paid for 25 minutes of work.

Alot of the work mechanics do is heavy lifting. Sure, you can go get a hoist, rig it up, safely secure your stuff, and go to it. OR you can use brute strength and cut down the process time. One way makes you money, the other keeps you safe but could cost you money.

[Name Lips]

We watched most of the Dirty Jobs series. It was fascinating to see all those dirty, filthy, hard, menial jobs that are what keeps society going.

I worked as a restaurant dishwasher for several years. Dirty, filthy, virtually no pay. Cleaning out rotten food matter from clogged drains. Sticking your hands into filth without knowing what's at the bottom. Ending the day with your clothes and shoes soaked with smelly, soapy water, no matter how "waterproof" your rubber shoes and plastic apron were supposed to be. Usually there were two dishwashers on a shift, and no women ever even applied for the job.

I can see Megamieuwsel's point. There are some women in these sorts of jobs, but genuinely not many. I don't know if it's genetics or cultural or what. But jobs that require strength and filth have very few women.

In terms of spacial recognition and problem solving, I do think that's mostly cultural/social. Women tend to work in teams or groups, be willing to ask for help, and so on. Men are trained to look at problems, reason out solutions, and implement them on their own, without asking for second opinions or advice. It's the "why don't you just stop and ask for directions" cliche argument. There are some jobs where you will never have anybody else to fall back on. You're alone in the situation and have to make all the calls and have all the expertise to fix a complex problem. I think society prepares men for this kind of job a lot more than it prepares women.

Men are also taught to "man up" and force themselves through things they would rather avoid. That pile of putrid, rotting flesh makes you want to vomit? MAN UP and clean it up, it's your JOB. If you puke, clean that up too.

Nobody talks to women like that. We're taught not to. Maybe it's because we're taught they can't handle it. Maybe it's because our reptile brain worries they won't have sex with us. I have no idea really. But putting up with that kind of behavior without breaking is part of what makes men accept each other as "one of the boys."

I think it's this idea that men will "man up" when things get rough, where women will complain and ask for help, that fuels the pay inequity. It's obviously not true -- I'm sure we can all think of tons of exceptions in just the people we personally know. There are men who would never get their hands dirty, who faint at the sight of blood, who are physically weak, who are pushovers, and can't take the "man up" talk. And there are women who are the exact opposite.

[Name Lips]

Oh, and here's a funny comic:

http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100516.gif

[Megamieuwsel]

^ pretty much, yes.

[Aloysius]

Men are also taught to "man up" and force themselves through things they would rather avoid. That pile of putrid, rotting flesh makes you want to vomit? MAN UP and clean it up, it's your JOB. If you puke, clean that up too.

Nobody talks to women like that. We're taught not to. Maybe it's because we're taught they can't handle it. Maybe it's because our reptile brain worries they won't have sex with us. I have no idea really. But putting up with that kind of behavior without breaking is part of what makes men accept each other as "one of the boys."


Seriously, when you will be old and disabled by some horrible disease, what are the chances that your ass will be cleaned by a man or a woman ? Women do dirty jobs too. Not the one that requires a lot of brute strength sure... With some exceptions, like vet (have you ever tried to castrate a donkey or an horse ? They are not very cooperative, and the anaesthetic is not always sufficient...).

[Megamieuwsel]

But that doesn't require the abstract thinking/technical insight I mentioned.
Empathy is more a requirement there and that's what woman excell in. (Again; as a generalisation...)
So; Not valid towards my point.
A valid different point, though.

[Name Lips]

Women do seem to have a great tolerance for body function grossness. Related to babies/caregiving? Or is it sexist to presume that? Am I imposing gender roles that would not exist if not encouraged by culture/society?

What about cleaning up rotting animal carcasses? Will a woman clean those up on her own when she has a perfectly good man around to ask for help? Or am I being presumptuous again?

[Aloysius]

There are a lot of very old cultural taboo concerning sexes and blood and gore. They are varying according to each cultures, but stuff related to killing and corpses has often been restricted to men and/or forbidden to women. This has nothing to do with innate abilities, and capitalism has crushed a lot of those : poultry slaughterhouse employ a large number of women, even if cattle slaughterhouse use mostly men.

[Cat of Ulthar]

I've worked as a restaurant dishwasher and cleaned up rotten animal carcasses. It's not pleasant but it has to be done so no use to get squeamish about it. When cleaning up a particularly rotten sheep that was squirming with maggots and falling apart (it was a warm summer), another girl who was going to help was puking at the fence post. I thought she was doing it to get out of handling the corpse, and indeed was thinking that it's something that girls can do and get away with, whereas men would be expected to "man up" as NL says.

[Name Lips]

Been thinking a bit more.

Men are tremendously afraid of other men perceiving them as weak or helpless. They will push themselves further than they should rather than risk the mockery and exclusion of other men.

Men tend to step up and try things on their own, hoping to earn respect and admiration. They would rather fail on their own merits than be forced to ask for help, even if it means the task won't be completed.

[Brynja]

But that doesn't require the abstract thinking/technical insight I mentioned.
Empathy is more a requirement there and that's what woman excell in. (Again; as a generalisation...)
So; Not valid towards my point.
A valid different point, though.


Perhaps I am reading what you are saying incorrectly, but are you implying women do not have the chops to do abstract thinking?

[Cat of Ulthar]

Men tend to step up and try things on their own, hoping to earn respect and admiration. They would rather fail on their own merits than be forced to ask for help, even if it means the task won't be completed.

Yes, which is very frustrating when one is their boss: Talk to me when you're not sure about something rather than trying to fix it on your own, which results in us having to untangle things later! Mind you, this is an issue for both men and women, come to think of it...

[Hatter]

Yes, which is very frustrating when one is their boss: Talk to me when you're not sure about something rather than trying to fix it on your own, which results in us having to untangle things later! Mind you, this is an issue for both men and women, come to think of it...

I used to do this, but then I had a boss who wanted to take action on everything I came to him with, even if I was just venting or giving him a head's up. That made me stop going to him altogether.

[Dacke]

Perhaps I am reading what you are saying incorrectly, but are you implying women do not have the chops to do abstract thinking?
Remember that we're talking in generalities. Are women completely unable to think abstractly (meaning mathematics and similar things)? No. Are all men better than all women at it? No. Is the average man better than the average woman at it? Yes.

[Megamieuwsel]

Perhaps I am reading what you are saying incorrectly, but are you implying women do not have the chops to do abstract thinking?
As Dacke already pointed out: Yes, you are reading it incorrectly. ;)

[Brynja]

Oh well I would have to disagree with you then on the basis of societal conditioning. There are certainly differences in how men and women consider problems but I do not think that precludes women from excelling in STEM topics. What I find interesting is that we wouldn't even be having this conversation regarding men teaching, nursing or do "womens" jobs.

[Megamieuwsel]

I'm not saying , they can't excell there; that'd be ridiculous.
I'm saying you simply don't find the combo of abstract thinking AND physical strength (..and the willingness to do the work in my field) amongst woman. The (extremely rare)ones that come "close" still fall short.
And hence get paid even shittier than I get...

[Name Lips]

As Dacke already pointed out: Yes, you are reading it incorrectly. ;)

Maybe she's just not thinking about it abstractly enough. :tongue:

[Brynja]

I'm not saying , they can't excell there; that'd be ridiculous.
I'm saying you simply don't find the combo of abstract thinking AND physical strength (..and the willingness to do the work in my field) amongst woman. The (extremely rare)ones that come "close" still fall short.
And hence get paid even shittier than I get...

Well for the most part we as a species have slowly altered the need for raw brute force. We have had simple machines like pulleys and understood fulcrums quite a long time. Do they not have unions in your area of work to prevent such pay disparity.

[Brynja]

Maybe she's just not thinking about it abstractly enough. :tongue:

dont make me light you on fire.

[Megamieuwsel]

Do they not have unions in your area of work to prevent such pay disparity.
Oh. there are.
But there is NO disparity there;

-I get paid for the work I deliver, based on the quality and quantity
Within the network I use for my work I've built up a reputation in that
regard and my pay is determined on those factors.
(See also: Ergeheilalt's example of a car-mechanic)

-The female counterparts are judged and paid on exactly the same points.
They get paid less, because the work they deliver is less. That's a hard,
solid statistic.

I should mention, there are also males that, following the same mechanisms, get paid less than I get.
Because they don't match up to me(and others)

But while those are not rare, it's not the 100%-score in this regard females score....

[Aloysius]

another girl who was going to help was puking at the fence post. I thought she was doing it to get out of handling the corpse, and indeed was thinking that it's something that girls can do and get away with, whereas men would be expected to "man up" as NL says.

As if men never puke in this kind of condition...:grey: I know I would.

[Cat of Ulthar]

As if men never puke in this kind of condition...:grey: I know I would.

The man helping me at the time didn't. I don't think men would never puke - but I do think they would try harder not to.

[Aloysius]

The man helping me at the time didn't. I don't think men would never puke - but I do think they would try harder not to.

If there is a woman next to them, sure, especially if they find her pretty. :D

(but well, I puked while sitting next to a pretty woman during a date... so even strong will and great motivation can't be enough when you are in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsFQakxFoQY). Argh, the memory...)

[Xavier Lang]

Changing the sexism that exists in the society I live in would require generations of work.

Let me give use an example. I have a co-worker who is planning to get his daughter a decent used car when she is a teenager because he is concerned about her safety. He wants to worry less about her being stranded on the side of the highway, etc... (Where we live in the MidWest, not having a car is very limiting. Most activities, school or otherwise require one to participate.)
He isn't going to help his son in the same way.

His kids are going to learn from that. If his son learns better money management and self reliance, and it helps him later in the work place to make more money than his sister, isn't the father (parents actually) to blame?

Do you think our hard wired biology will let 100% of parents allow both sons and daughters to engage in the same amount and types of risk taking behaviors?