101–110 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a terrible idea. It may seem nice to a person with a lot of disposable income, who can afford for both people in the family to take have a break from their careers, but forcing that on people who are in poor financial condition is just terrible.
Parental leave is paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need to upend the idea that family care is solely the domain of women (normalizing parental leave for fathers with newborns is a good Don't have a kid, but I would think that an infant is better off having his mother close to him in his early months of life compared to having his father, for the simple biological reason that the mother can breast-feed, while a father can't. From what I remember reading kids who…
From what I remember reading kids who are breast-fed tend to do better in life in terms of health or being better from a psylogical point of view. The former (health) is absolutely true, but it's nothing that couldn't also be solved by the mother pumping her breast milk and the father doing the actual feeding by bottle. "bottle vs breast" is about the actual milk being fed, not the delivery method.
that's a very descartesian view, and from my experience and study also very unfounded. all you need to do is observe a baby while it's brestfed vs. bottlefed.
would you say that you feel the same after eating off the floor (very clean of course) vs. in a nice setting? after all, it's just about the nutrients, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I explain my issue with this question. >How it is more often foisted upon women? I show that there is an equal pressure put on men to do different things. My issue is with the "more often". Now, maybe you were only talking about the pressure on women and not the pressure on men... you should be able to see the issue with this as well.
Except that we are talking about why women on average don't make as much during their careers. You are punting and saying, well men have pressure to work more. You are absolutely right, and it should be part of the conversation, but you've not somehow proved that the women being encouraged to prioritize family isn't a problem.
I never said it wasn't a problem. I said in a different comment:
>But gender roles are still a problem, especially for the people who are forced into the roles they do not like.
Now, as someone who does value work life balance more than making a lot of money working long hours, I do personally judge one social pressure as not as bad as the other. But I also understand that there are man who have different priorities who see other social pressures as worse, and I understand that there is a 'grass is always greener' effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife couldn't produce milk. My wife's niece wouldn't latch. There are a lot of people in these situations where, even if true, your reasoning does not apply.
So? As long as there are substantial number to whom it does apply, it will remain a real on-average sex difference.
If there were an institutional bias against women tech workers, one way it could manifest is by women receiving less recognition and promotions, or being hired in to lower positions with the same skills and experience. Which would mean they might typically have a lower job title than the equivalent male worker, so controlling for job title could hide the bias.
I'm not saying this is or isn't the case, but it is a rather blatant possibility that isn't addressed by what is seeming like a naive study.
This is fairly consistent with other studies. The "77%" number is arrived at by comparing the median wage of full-time male & female employees. It doesn't account for differences in industry, job title, experience, etc. It's super broad. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, but it means we need more granularity. Coming out of uni/grad school, male and female salaries are equal in comparable fields. They depart a fe…
What if it's the case that preferences are different among men and women? Why do we assume that the women surveyed would prefer to have the higher paying but more demanding career paths? My wife is very smart and capable of making a high salary. She chose a flexible job path and took several years off to be with our children in their younger years. We could certainly afford otherwise; our family would have more money…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife couldn't produce milk. My wife's niece wouldn't latch. There are a lot of people in these situations where, even if true, your reasoning does not apply.
So? As long as there are substantial number to whom it does apply, it will remain a real on-average sex difference.
A young child will be nursing many times during a day, giving plenty of opportunities for a working mother to nurse their child without giving up time to work on their career. Feedings while the mother is out can be done by bottle using pumped milk, or through formula.
Sexual differences do not need to imply social advantage/disadvantage here ...
This is fairly consistent with other studies. The "77%" number is arrived at by comparing the median wage of full-time male & female employees. It doesn't account for differences in industry, job title, experience, etc. It's super broad. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, but it means we need more granularity. Coming out of uni/grad school, male and female salaries are equal in comparable fields. They depart a fe…
I like the idea of "mandatory paternity leave", to make up for the biological asymmetry. Even if you have a stereotypical breadwinner/housewife relationship, you are legally mandated to take time off, even if you don't want to. That way you avoid the "you're allowed to take paternal leave, but real go-getters don't!" game altogether. edit: The way I see it, the responses just prove my point. "This would just make peo…
The whole problem with paternity leave is that there's a financial disincentive for companies to offer it and there's a financial disincentive for male employees to accept it.
"No salary gap exists between women and men in tech, says job search firm Dice, looking at its annual survey of 16,000 tech professionals, as long as you are comparing people with equal experience, education, and job titles. That, of course, is a big if. And previous data from Dice found about a $10,000 pay gap between men and women if not controlled for those factors. Dice’s president, Bob Melk, in a letter to the m…
>That, of course, is a big if. And previous data from Dice found about a $10,000 pay gap between men and women if not controlled for those factors. So what you are saying is that more experienced and more educated people get paid more? The horror! Seriously though, what is the problem with more experienced and educated people getting paid more?
The problem is that logic you gave is suspect to a survivorship bias. Consider a hypothetical where 50% of the women in tech are arbitrarily excluded from the field at age 30, while none of the men face that exclusion. The men and women who are in the field at age 40 have the same experience, education, and pay. Thus, equal pay alone does not indicate the lack of discrimination on the basis of sex.
As a more real-world example, Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_harassment#Robinson_.... is one of the earlier court cases which established that sexual harassment can lead to "an increase of women quitting jobs, getting transferred, or being fired" and "The sexualization of the workplace imposes burdens on women that are not borne by men". (Quotes from the decision at http://www.leagle.com/decision/19912246760FSupp1486_12018/RO.... ) If more women welders leave the field than men welders, because of sexual harassment in the workplace, then it doesn't matter that those women who stay in the field have the same pay as the men who stay.
Thus, the "big if" might be expanded to "if men and women are given the same encouragement, same access to education, and same opportunity to gain experience." This survey assumes that that is true.
I'm surprised. In a technical PM role a few years ago I found out that I earned 20-40% less than other PM's at the company. There were more than a dozen PM's and I was the only woman who was mid-level seniority. My male direct report made almost the same as me, while my female direct reports made a lot less. In my case it was not due to lack of initial negotiation, but that at each promotion I didn't get a sufficient…
The best way to fix this is to create a social pressure to be open about salaries. Some want to fix this by teaching better negotiation skills to those who are poor at it, but as long as the social pressure is to hide this data, it is going to keep being a problem regardless if the cause is racism, sexism, classism, or just difference in negotiation skills.