I've been one to speak my mind. I see myself as having been punished for it. I was doing work a grade or two above mine but was held back from promotion. So I didn't make senior developer on that team. Then I was even in jeopardy of losing my job over a statement I made (not vulgar, disrespectful, or anything) so I have to switch stacks a couple times to move out of a bad area of the company. I'm 9 years in and just a midlevel. My trust in the company and my desire to work hard for them are abysmal.
"Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense."
I was stupid enough to do this too. People were discussing the gender wage gap the way the TV reporters do - that a woman in the same job as a man, with all things equal, makes 80 cents on the dollar. So I brought up the BLS study that shows that the 80 cents number is about an aggregate comparison of all men and women in the workforce, and that the main driver of the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. I wouldn't be surprised if I get downvoted on here for this comment too.
Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument:
>the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in.
only comes down to just being a moving the goal posts sort of thing from disparity in pay to disparity in expectation and opportunity for young men versus women. It's not a compelling argument against a gender pay gap, overall.
Using your own metric of a broad view, it's probably more of a problem than a specific man versus a specific woman, because it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men.
Anyway, any workplace that wouldn't let you have a conversation about this topic, in a respectful, non-bigoted way is maybe not a healthy place to work. The problem is, these types of arguments are (in my experience as a professional) a thin veneer of 'civility' over a massive ocean of bigotry and idiocy in many cases. I'm afraid employers take a hard line, because it's easy to slip into that ocean.
Maybe, but I still think there's an important point in there.
We (society) do a lot of handwringing about CEO and engineering jobs, but these aren't even remotely the most gender-asymmetric careers out there.
According to [1], "Locomotive engineers and operators" are 92.3 percent male. I'm willing to bet that if you can "fix" that problem - or even conclusively identify the cause - gender imbalance issues in other fields will be less contentious.
“fixing” that “problem” would involve somehow convincing many women to enter a career field in which they have no interest. How do you propose to force them to change their desires?
> would involve somehow convincing many women to enter a career field in which they have no interest
This is a blatant non sequitur. Counterexample:
It's hard in many places to be a male schoolteacher, because men are seen by parents and other staff as potential predators, to the point where some people won't even trust a man to change their kid's diapers. Men have said that this is a big reason they don't want to become schoolteachers, so if we help change public opinion on this front, then we've ostensibly lessened a gender imbalance without "forcing" any men to "change their desires."
That argument assumes women aren't interested in those roles, and that their disinterest is the only or primary thing that causes an imbalance.
You have to know that isn't true, which makes this a great example of why people are frustrated about discussing anything 'political' in the workplace.
Why on earth would you say "you have to know this isn't true"?
If you see similar patterns across many different cultures, including ones considered to be more gender-egalitarian, I would have honestly thought the conclusion would be, in fact, varying interests.
Or do you think there are no biological differences (on average) between men and women, in which case, I can provide you with large, multi-national studies that come to a different conclusion.
I can see how there could be debate about how much the difference is, and what the causes of it are, but "you have to know that isn't true" seems like saying "Come on, everyone knows the world is flat, stop arguing in bad faith".
Sure. And there are fewer full-blown autistic people than there are people "on the spectrum". But it's a lot easier to study autism by looking at severe cases than it is to try to figure out what's biologically different about people who are "a little aspy".
92% of veterinarians are female
98.8% (!) of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female
If you want to understand gender imbalance in employment, these are the obvious places to start.
> 98.8% (!) of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female
I'm fairly sure a big part of the driver for the imbalance in education is that being a teacher is one of the only ways, other than being a full-time employee (not contractor) some place like Google, to access European-like levels of parental leave, plus European-like levels of time-off, generally, which is also hugely valuable when you have kids, while also being a career in which leaving multiple times for months at a time to have kids (if you time it well with Summer, or hit up FMLA time) is minimally disruptive to one's career growth, which is unusual for non-very-rare-and-hard-to-get jobs. Plus, and this isn't to be under-appreciated, teachers are in demand everywhere, so one can gain all the above and move to (for example) let your spouse chase higher wages at a less-family-friendly job (nursing is similarly friendly in that demanded-everywhere way, and go figure, nursing is dominated by women, too).
Relatedly, teaching is also one of the most single-parenting-friendly jobs around. The pay may not be great, but you're off (more or less) when your kids are, it's stable, and it comes with benefits. Retirement, even! It may also let you do things like get a job in a good school district, while living in a worse district (cheaper housing), but send your kids to the better district you work in, which can make a huge difference if you're on a single income.
For younger grades in particular, I think it's all of the above, plus a combination of simple interest-factor, and of men fearing (not unjustly) that any interest in or affinity for young kids (who aren't relatives) will make them look extremely creepy.
That would be a great theory, except that gender segregation is similar for countries with European-like levels of parental leave.
In a Swedish study the term they used for the teacher profession was a "leaky pipe". The first year at university the teacher program is only somewhat gender segregated, but for every year that goes men either quit or refocus towards a specialty with more men. Once graduate, each year as an employed teacher the segregation rate increases with men either quitting or switching to a specialty like after-school sport.
The number 1 cause as highlighted by that study: culture fit and not feeling accepted.
Okay yeah, that's a different issue than what I thought you meant. You're saying we should focus on the most asymmetric careers because they'll give us the best understanding of gender gaps.
That makes sense, but personally I think you should still focus on the "smaller issues" instead of just looking at the most extremes. People who are "a little aspy" may have similar biological causes as severe autism, but their social situations are much different. People with Aspergers may just require some minor accommodation to live their lives, but people with Autism may require a lot of care. The causes can be similar while the scale drastically changes the type of response.
Not that agree or disagree, but... Using that logic, why should we care at all. Less than 7 million out of about 170 million in the workforce. Shouldn't we be looking a other, more common jobs? (On a side note I'm surprised software devs are only 1.9 million)
What's your point? Either way we're adding up largely arbitrary line items composing a very small minority. It makes more sense to look the areas that would impact the most people. To use your analogy, who cares if the seller takes care of that $40k line item of the other ones that need work add up to $250k? Great, I have a solid roof but what about my crumbling foundation...
Because men and women are physiologically different and are just not attracted to the same things. For example most women don't like hunting, while men do, most likely due to evolutionary reasons.
If it's just about statistics not looking as nice and even as we'd like then no, in my opinion we shouldn't make any efforts to change it.
Obviously that is the case. It would be startling if adults chose careers in exactly even proportions, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, or whatever. BUT, based on human developmental theory and how people make decisions, no choice is truly random.
Therefore, there must be a reason for those choices.
Your theory offers no explanation other than random chance, from what I can tell. Identifying inputs and outcomes is sort of the point of solving problems.
I think the main issue was with the "expectation" part. It carries an insinuation of being forced, or socially shunned, etc. There are choices being made, and choices aren't random. I don't really see expectations that a woman take a lower paying job playing into that very much. I can see more pressure on the other side - like for the man to pay for everything on dates, support their family, etc, with the resulting less pressure on the other side allowing the choice of work that is fulfilling in other ways (societal benefit, fun, less stress, flexibility). Even these roles are choices. A man could choose not to pay for dates, be a stay at home dad, etc. When it come mate selection, there is generally more pressure on the male than the female.
I'm assume you're male because you're coming at it from that perspective. Do you believe there is no pressure when you're one of the few women in an engineering course? There's a lot at play here, and focusing on your slice may prevent you from seeing the whole.
I can see pressure if the woman (or any first-of) is one of the first in their role/job to do well and represent their subgroup. This of course implies that there is a stereotype to overcome, which I see as a very small minority sentiment today. I didn't notice any stereotyping related to women in my classes. Also, in my masters courses the gender mix was probably 60% male 40% female.
There is a lot at play, and there is plenty of variation by location and other factors.
And what you have done, I am willing to bet, is use your own individual experiences to draw conclusions for the wider world. My own personal experience is that this is almost never a good idea (see what I did there). This is not a values judgment, or meant to be hateful at all, really.
This paragraph reads as if you are saying, "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist."
And the same can be done in the other direction. Are you worried about some rare disease or catastrophe? We have to determine where the line is and if the current laws are somehow not adequate to protect people's rights.
I'm not saying that issues do not exist (see my prior comment about very small minority). From what I've seen, including various statistics, it seems to me that gender discrimination is not common and the laws are already in place to deal with it.
But then why do those careers earn less money? Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less?
If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived?
If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?
The question is why those careers earn less money. Your assertion is that the careers men choose are more dangerous, so those careers earn more. My question is, are dangerous careers well paid?
My point wasn't that all the specified careers were above the median salary, my point was that the most dangerous jobs don't seem to be the best paid jobs. The original question was
> But then why do those careers earn less money?
and the follow up was
> If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived?
which I tried to answer with looking at which jobs killed more people. It doesn't look to me like the big money is in jobs which kill more people
Computer systems design and related services: $50.60/hr ~= $101k/yr
Legal services: $46.34/hr ~= $93k/yr
-------
That said, I think the commenter I was responding to was trying to change the subject
> If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?
Regardless of the answer to their question, the topic would then be on-the-job deaths instead of the gender wage gap. I chose to answer the part of the question relevant to the gender wage gap.
Many of those jobs produce fewer tangible outputs, are government jobs, non-profit, or otherwise do not focus on maximizing profit. Positions like teachers, social workers, etc are seen as cost centers, not revenue centers. They are necessary jobs and perform valuable societal functions, but they are supported through other revenues which were not a direct product of their job. As for why one gender chooses those jobs more than others, there are a variety of factors. One of the leading ones is that some people are more likely to choose work that is meaningful over just a dollar amount. Studies show that isn't just based on gender, but also in the some minority groups.
That's not true. Obstetricians are mostly women and are better paid (on average) than internal medicine, which is mostly men. There are other examples.
If you assume men are willing to give up more (life span, time, stress, risk) for money than women, it has an amazing amount of explanatory power.
This is basically my point. If you have a srated goal of getting to 1.00 v 1.00 with that metric and focus on the individuals in the same jobs, then you will never get there. It's a mismatch between policy and intent. Using the goal post analogy, there taking their shots at the sideline without realizing where the goal really is. The posts haven't moved, they just see a mirage in another place.
"...points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men."
I do disagree a little with this part. I know that might be true in some cases, but I think a lot of it is by choice too. My wife could have worked at a regular job and made more money, but she likes her flexible hours and her fun job more. In fact, her hourly rate is more than mine, but she just works fewer hours. So she has the opportunity to make more than me, but chooses not to. It makes sense. If I could work less and have less stress, more fun, and the same benefits or living conditions...
I remember a study about African American college grads and aggregate pay being lower than other groups. The analysis showed that the main part of that was because they were choosing jobs based on societal benefit rather than just pay. Things like social workers, teachers, etc. I believe the BLS study showed some of that to be true for the gender wage gap too. Basically, I'm saying that it's not like people are being forced into or away from specific jobs as the main driver.
I'm afraid you've missed my point. Obviously no one is forcing individual people into one career or another. Never in my life has someone held a gun to my head and said, "pick a job in education, because I say so."
But, society as a whole, places expectations on some groups, but not others. Whether those expectations are to be the caregiver or big tough man who provides for the family. Therefore, career choice, and the pay outcomes, are not truly based on merit or ability, and can be controlled by unfair external factors. Further, what this means is that the playing field is not level. Some people will have advantages, just because of how they were born - which is the issue we started with.
Also - while I applaud you and your wife's position, you are confusing anecdotal data with evidence. It does tell a story, absolutely, but it proves nothing by itself.
>The analysis showed that the main part of that was because they were choosing jobs based on societal benefit rather than just pay.
Why do you think that would be the case? Why do you believe one subset of students would choose those careers in larger numbers than other groups?
"Therefore, career choice, and the pay outcomes, are not truly based on merit or ability, and can be controlled by unfair external factors. Further, what this means is that the playing field is not level. Some people will have advantages, just because of how they were born - which is the issue we started with."
I could be a doctor, or a lawyer, or some other high paying powerful job, but I chose not to. Does that have anything to do with my gender? Why am I not being paid on my merits and abilities eventhough I chose not to take those paths in life?
The idea that the pay is based on someone's innate abilities or merits is insane. You get paid for your output/outcomes in the job that you work. There is not some unfair external factor based on how someone is born (you can choose your gender). There are people of all backgrounds in every job. If you're claiming some inherent characteristic at birth is fatalistic in determining one's outcome, you are greatly mistaken. Sure, you can be born with intelligence or physical abilities that can make it easier to get to some high paying professional or sports job, but there are plenty of people born with less who work harder to make up for that and are successful.
People choose work because they are driven by money (which your argument focuses on). Other people choose work on if it's their passion. Or they might want to make the world a better place. Assuming it's all about money is a huge mistake.
I think we have a miscommunication and an issue with a lack of common definitions between the two of us.
>The idea that the pay is based on someone's innate abilities or merits is insane
Merit is not innate ability. Merit is just ability - not natural ability. This is a combination of skill, willingness to learn, hard work, grit, access to resources, and (yes some innate factors such as disability status) other factors contained inside the person - but very few of these are predetermined. Overall, merit is 'how good you are' and innate ability is 'how good you could be' by my definition. I am not talking about innate ability. I feel that i did not do a good job of explaining that.
>If you're claiming some inherent characteristic at birth is fatalistic in determining one's outcome, you are greatly mistaken
I am not saying it is 100% fatalistic. That is an extreme view that I did not claim. Let me explain further. What I am saying is that, in theory, and what I am responding to OP with in regards to his/her statement about the gender pay gap, is that some careers are, from an early age, taught to us as being more masculine (engineer, doctor, that sort of thing) than others (teaching, social work, those sorts of things). And, further, more classically masculine jobs tend to pay better than the more classically feminine job. No one person is 'predetermined', but we, as a society, instill a values system that says girls do 'x' and boys do 'y'; also 'x' is valued in 'x1' career fields (lower paid) and 'y' is valued in 'y1' career fields (higher paid). Therefore, society is at least partially responsible for a disparity in employment in certain fields, which leads to the pay gap originally claimed. Yes, individuals have responsibility for their own futures, but there needs to be an acknowledgment and work toward overcoming the arbitrary barriers society has put in place for some people based on innate characteristics such as gender.
>People choose work because they are driven by money (which your argument focuses on). Other people choose work on if it's their passion. Or they might want to make the world a better place. Assuming it's all about money is a huge mistake.
I am not assuming it's all about money. I am simply using that metric, because it's what we started with, and it seems to be the easiest/most popular.
What I am saying----- the playing field is not level for all contenders, based on external factors. These factors do NOT predetermine outcomes, but they absolutely DO influence choices. If the playing field were level, and men still chose some careers over others, and women some other careers over the first, that's fine. It's about equality in opportunity, not equality in outcome.
"Therefore, career choice, and the pay outcomes, are not truly based on merit or ability, and can be controlled by unfair external factors."
"Merit is not innate ability. Merit is just ability - not natural ability. This is a combination of skill, willingness to learn, hard work, grit, access to resources, and (yes some innate factors such as disability status) other factors contained inside the person - but very few of these are predetermined."
How are these both true? Career choice and pay is not based on merit, yet merit is a measure of your ability. Wouldn't you need the ability to choose a career and be successful at it? My point is that if you have the merit, you will have the job and the pay.
"Yes, individuals have responsibility for their own futures, but there needs to be an acknowledgment and work toward overcoming the arbitrary barriers society has put in place for some people based on innate characteristics such as gender."
I don't see any real barriers. I understand that some people may be swayed by the opinions of others. For example, some people may not want to be strippers of pornstars due to stigma. But that is not a true barrier to entry. They have every right to pursue that career. If we live in a society where group-think is so important that you will decline a career or job based on what other people think and not on your morals or beliefs, then I feel this says more about the sad state of that individuals self-imposed restrictions in freedom than it does about "society". After all, society has approved of those careers by allowing them to be lawful.
"It's about equality in opportunity, not equality in outcome."
"What I am saying----- the playing field is not level for all contenders, based on external factors."
What makes you say the playing field is not level and that equal opportunity does not exist?
It doesn't really -- I don't think any business say "well, I'm paying for surgeons rather than pediatricians, which have more men, so I'll pay more." This would ignore obstetricians (more women) getting paid more than internal medicine (mostly men). Jobs tend to pay what the market works out is the lowest amount people will take the role for. This is the basic principle of supply and demand.
Men tend to go to the jobs that pay more, the jobs don't pay more because men go to them. Not seeing this seems to be a massive willful ignoring of economics.
Men tend to work longer hours. They negotiate more at hiring, as they are willing to take the chance that the request for more money fails and apply somewhere else.
> and can be controlled by unfair external factors
Are you sure about that?
In Sweden, society is very gender-equal: they have paternity leave, very small paygap, about 50% of women in leadership position. Yet only 13% of Swedish engineers are women.
I think if you eliminate all the external factors you’re talking about, you still won’t get anywhere close to 50% of female engineers, or 50% of male pediatricians, as long as people are free to choose a profession.
>you still won’t get anywhere close to 50% of female engineers, or 50% of male pediatricians, as long as people are free to choose a profession.
And that's fair. My argument isn't that it needs to be split and completely equal. It's that the freedom to choose needs to be equal, and the playing field needs to be level, so that who is and who isn't in 'field a' is, in fact based on merit and not arbitrary classification at birth such as gender and ethnicity.
> It's that the freedom to choose needs to be equal, and the playing field needs to be level
I agree. About race inequality, I think in the US the two main causes are public schools paid by local district taxes, and very expensive higher education.
"It's that the freedom to choose needs to be equal, and the playing field needs to be level, so that who is and who isn't in 'field a' is, in fact based on merit and not arbitrary classification at birth such as gender and ethnicity."
This seems to imply that it is not equal now. Is there any basis to support that?
> Using your own metric of a broad view, it's probably more of a problem than a specific man versus a specific woman, because it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men.
The problem is "societal norms" are incredibly vague and difficult to pin down or prove or even define.
It is very dangerous to start socially engineering all of society and our economy by a small, unrepresentative, self selected group of activists arbitrarily determining each person's "value" and rearranging society to fit their whims.
> The problem is, these types of arguments are (in my experience as a professional) a thin veneer of 'civility' over a massive ocean of bigotry and idiocy in many cases.
Yes, I've definitely seen this coming from many self proclaimed progressives.
I think it is still understandable though that making those kinds of technical corrections about a study could be perceived as "defining away the problem" or getting too technical about a (potentially) real societal issue.
The mere fact that you are talking about "TV reporters" way of talking about things communicates that you have a disdain for the way such issues are commonly discussed in the media or by the general public, and correcting their statement about the study also seems to suggest that according to you really there is no gender wage gap (or it's less of an issue than people would seem to generally think), it's all just due to personal choice or preference in what type of jobs they do or something to that effect.
You can of course agree or disagree about a lot of these things, but I do think that sometimes a "mere factual correction" can have additional connotations that are much more political and not just neutral statements. It's often the opinion or suggestion behind the factual correction that causes more offense.
I don't see why a factual correction should be seen as political. Especially if I don't present any arguement with it or have it lead into an opposing opinion. As stated in the prior comment, I'll correct people who I agree with their conclusion (on different factual/logical basis) if their facts are wrong or blatantly misapplied.
The comment about the TV reporters is because they should have a responsibility to ensure their facts are correctly represented. Instead of doing their own research and reading the study, they are willing to just repeat what others have said. I think it's difficult to provide an accurate picture of a subject if they know almost nothing about it. How many times have you heard a report on a technology story and thought that isn't a correct explanation, or maybe it's not the whole story?
"Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense."
I was stupid enough to do this too. People were discussing the gender wage gap the way the TV reporters do - that a woman in the same job as a man, with all things equal, makes 80 cents on the dollar. So I brought up the BLS study that shows that the 80 cents number is about an aggregate comparison of all men and women in the workforce, and that the main driver of the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. I wouldn't be surprised if I get downvoted on here for this comment too.