Why You Will Never Get Equal Pay for Women

[Ryika]

You post a study, like all studies of this type, that are based on averages.
Do you think that the study that you linked is dishonest because it uses averages.
I am well aware that there are very few average people but how else are you going to carry out a study of the type you linked.

Averages are fine, but you are not using averages, that's precisely the point.
The average couple is _NOT_ a couple that has a wage difference of 6%.

6% is the theoretical, calculated difference that men and women would be at if they had lived lives in which made all the same choices.
But they obviously did not, therefor, these 6% simply cannot be used as the "average" value. The "average" couple that wants to have a baby is one where the man earns more than the woman because of choices both partners made, the average woman chose to focus more on the household, she chose to do fewer hours in the past, and therefor, she is now earning less than the man. The couple for which the 6% make a difference is a rarity, the outlier.

I suppose you could have 1000 "random" couples giving the reasons why the women took up the child care with the difference in pay recorded.
But someone would plot the results and discover that where the women earned more than the man the man was more likely on average to look after the child and then you would be upset.

That's pure speculation on your part. I don't know of any studies that has actually been able to test for this, so my counter-speculation is that even when the woman earns more, she is more likely to go part-time or quit, and do the child caring. Because again, there's more to it than money, women prefer to do the child caring way more than men do. I would expect this to slowly equalize as the pay gap increases, and to swap only when the differences in pay become reasonably big, with very one-sided numbers only where the man's paycheck either could not properly finance the family with only part-time contribution on her part, or the woman is more focused on having a career than the average woman. That happens as well of course, but it's again not the average relationship. It's a rarity.

In either case, there is nothing to be upset here. If there are studies done in the future that show with good methodology that I am wrong and couples do indeed only compare pay checks, and neither sex has any preference for child rearing or having a career, then I'm willing to accept that, and am happy to have learned something. (This is actually the difference between me and you btw. - if the opposite is shown, you will dig deeper and make up more excuses..) This however I find highly unlikely, because again... it starts with the fact that there's one sex that gets pregnant, and there's one sex that does not, continues with literally everything we see in society, and ends with the observation that childcare is done largely by the female members of our relatives in the animal kingdom. Literally everything points towards the conclusion that on average females are more interested in child-rearing than males.

 

[Commodore]

Starts off at 7% for high school kids/very young adults. Then the gap closes to 4% for college aged/fresh out of college. Then the gap widens and widens. Make of that what you want.

Median weekly earnings aren't very useful for determining whether or not a pay gap between men and women is the result of discrimination against women or not. And since the equal pay movement is making the claim that a gap is the result of discrimination against women, merely showing there is a gap isn't enough. The equal pay movement has to not only demonstrate there is a gap, but also prove that gap is a result of discrimination against women. Median weekly earnings data does not do the latter.

And just for clarification: When someone says "the pay gap doesn't exist" they are really just using that as shorthand for saying that a pay gap in which the main cause is discrimination against women does not exist.

 

[Hrothbern]

Flexibility of the workforce in terms of willingness for overtime when needed, is important for many companies.
Employers and their managers are more likely to promote employees to higher levels, where this overtime willingness becomes more important, and cannot be solved anymore by shifting employess from here to there, or hiring some temps.

So... IF in general male employees would have, for whatever reason, more willingness to make overtime at the (also inconvenient) moments needed, than female employees,
you get differences in salary (binding the willing employees) and difference in function level.

Searching on internet on that possible effect I found this article: https://qz.com/149428/mens-overtime-hours-are-keeping-the-gender-pay-gap-alive/

"The gender gap in pay persists due to the fact that men are more likely than women to work 50 hours-plus a week, found a recent study (pdf) published by the American Sociological Review. The extra hours—known as “overwork”—result, on average, in an extra 6% in hourly wages across all occupations. This difference has exacerbated the gender pay gap by around 10%, the study claims.

In 2000, 19% of men worked 50 hours or more per week, compared to 7% of women. The researchers suggested that women are less likely both to enter a job that demands overworking and to stay in it. And despite moves toward equality, women still tend to be more responsible than men for housework and childcare—hours that hardly count on the job but make them plenty overworked, too"

 

[Commodore]

None of that shows discrimination against women though.

And this line in particular is very, very dishonest:

And despite moves toward equality, women still tend to be more responsible than men for housework and childcare—hours that hardly count on the job but make them plenty overworked, too.

The implication being that women are being forced into childcare roles and housework. That is simply not true. Everything that contributes to any perceived pay gap between men and women are the result of personal choices, not some grand patriarchal scheme to keep women down.

 

[Hrothbern]

None of that shows discrimination against women though.
And this line in particular is very, very dishonest:
The implication being that women are being forced into childcare roles and housework. That is simply not true. Everything that contributes to any perceived pay gap between men and women are the result of personal choices, not some grand patriarchal scheme to keep women down.

I did not post that to express my opinion that female are discriminated in an unfair way on this willingness to overtime.
It was intended to show that this gender wage cap has many complicating factors that make a quick simple opinion difficult.
Willingness for overtime just one of those "as such" neutral factors that take effect.

Even without that childcare:
My experience is that on average male singles have a less tidy and clean household than female.... do not get that uncomfortable with having some housekeeping backlog, some laundry piling up etc, when they had a couple of days a lot of overtime.
Female feeling more responsible to keep a higher minimum level there.

 

[Ryika]

Can confirm, my bf is as messy of a person as it gets.

 

[Hrothbern]

Can confirm, my bf is as messy of a person as it gets.

I am a disaster

 

[Commodore]

I did not post that to express my opinion that female are discriminated in an unfair way on this willingness to overtime.

I know, which is why I didn't quote you directly. I was more trying to preempt anyone who would try to use that article as evidence of discrimination against women.

 

[warpus]

The implication being that women are being forced into childcare roles and housework. That is simply not true.

Gender roles still exist, and many people in America still cling to and live by them.

 

[Hrothbern]

Gender roles still exist, and many people in America still cling to and live by them.

It is not only gender roles

it is also personal preferences in what you find more important or what makes you happier to do.
I like cooking very much, as well as the shopping needed for it.
Which is not my classic role as a male.
At home I really have to compete with my daughter and my girlfriend who of us is allowed to cook !

 

[Commodore]

Gender roles still exist, and many people in America still cling to and live by them.

But it's not forced by society in general. Women (and men for that matter) are not forced by society at large to conform to gender roles. In fact, we are bombarded on a daily basis now with messages that state just the opposite. So people who are still conforming to gender roles are doing so out of personal choice, not because of laws or societal pressure.

 

[warpus]

But it's not forced by society in general.

Maybe you're lucky enough to live in a feminist paradise, but in a lot of places it definitely is.

 

[Ryika]

At home I really have to compete with my daughter and my girlfriend who of us is allowed to cook !

Why don't you just all cook together? ^^

But it's not forced by society in general. Women (and men for that matter) are not forced by society at large to conform to gender roles. In fact, we are bombarded on a daily basis now with messages that state just the opposite. So people who are still conforming to gender roles are doing so out of personal choice, not because of laws or societal pressure.

Indeed, and the more people have the freedom to act as they want, the more they act in accordance with traditional gender roles, which indicates a strong connection between personal preferences and traditional gender roles in the average person.
This - and the mindgames people play with themselves to try to get around that to keep believing in the thing they want to be true ("Discrimination everywhere!") - is demonstrated in the first episode of the Norwegian documentary Hjernevask (Brainwashed) that made quite a few headlines when it was released:

40 minutes long, but definitely worth a watch.

 

[Commodore]

Maybe you're lucky enough to live in a feminist paradise, but in a lot of places it definitely is.

Not really. There is nothing in the US that stops a woman or a man from living whatever lifestyle they want (well, as long as that lifestyle doesn't involve anything illegal like human sacrifice or something like that). In fact, I'd say the last true form of legally enforced gender roles was abolished under Obama. That being the ban on women serving in combat roles in the military being lifted.

 

[warpus]

Not really. There is nothing in the US that stops a woman or a man from living whatever lifestyle they want

I believe this is what people mean when they cite "male privilege"

Just because there are laws on the books doesn't mean that gender roles have magically vanished.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

By definition, diversity means wide variety of perceived difference by classification...some of which is very subjective. Diversity fails to exist by subtracting those members of a community who disagree with you. Social engineering results in homogeneity...which is terrible. You do not want a country of 100% leftists all toeing the party line. That would be the opposite of diversity.

This would be like extreme ostracizing of homosexuals away from communities and into mental institutions...save it would be traditional conservatives on the right.

So in a healthy diverse society, you would see a continuum of gender roles decided by individuals and paired coupling in which these are negotiated by practical means. Taking turns at child rearing by prioritization...say one mom goes back to school and the other mom or dad takes over childrearing sometimes to facilitate their partner's success.

We know from anthropology that gender roles vary so they are social constructs governed partial by pragmatic biological processes.

Demonization of others because you have fundamental differences is absurd. This is why a moderate communication allows for diplomacy regardless of personal ethos. A Christian insisting an atheist change their ethos OR vice versa leads to conflict. No post of mine insists on such a nonsensical concept of changing your mindset. It's about dialogue only. As such even the radical notion of 58 genders is not dismissed by me as apparently it is a phenomena to be understood. And the norm is to at least encourage young people to communicate.

The worst danger is radical fundamentalism.which is ubiquitous and demonizes any opinions that is not precisely the same as itself.

 

[Akka]

Gender roles still exist, and many people in America still cling to and live by them.

The whole problem is rooted in the fact that it's pretty hard to know which part of gender roles is "natural" and which part is "social". Especially due to long history and feedback loop.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the gender roles is based on social habits which become internalized, but I'm just as certain (and well, it's really blatantly obvious for anyone who isn't trying very hard to look the other way) that there IS an average inherent difference between men and women in behaviour, leading to actual gender roles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I believe this is what people mean when they cite "male privilege"

Just because there are laws on the books doesn't mean that gender roles have magically vanished.

Absolutely. The question is, other than "putting laws on the books" what can a society based upon rule of law do?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Carve laws into sturdy granite slabs?

 

[Lexicus]

Glad to see reactionaries calling the problem insoluble rather than pretending it doesn't exist.