331–340 of 362 posts
Personally I think the biggest caveat avoided "when job differences are accounted for" is the care of children. Women, by-and-large, really get hosed with the negative externalities of having children (time off, career halting, etc). Most Western countries are not generous or equitable by half, and the USA is downright savage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's quite a bit better than a 3AM emergency call to the operating room. We need to quit with this idea that all doctors are either emergency physicians or emergency surgeons. Most doctors are not that. And does anyone really believe that if teachers worked just a few more hours per week, they'd all be driving maseratis?
The infographic in question specifically referenced thoracic surgeons, who are considerably more likely to experience on-call rotations or emergencies than, say, a family physician. I honestly don't know what your second sentence is referencing. I was simply stating that, contrary to some claims here, many high school teachers absolutely get the entire summer off and don't work much more than 40 hours per week during…
I tell you what else the infographic leaves out: all the free shit doctors get. Doctors get free shit from all over the place, and sure, they don't get that long summer break that teachers get, but they do get to jet internationally to conferences/drinking sessions.
Not to mention that having twice the lifetime earnings means much more than having twice the disposable income. A carton of milk and a box of cereal cost the same for a doctor and a teacher, and nourish them just the same as well. Basically, that infographic is ridiculously slanted.
As for the second sentence, a maserati is a fancy car, and I was using it as an allegory for the difference in lifestyles between doctors and teachers. That difference is more than you could make up working a few extra hours per week on a teacher's wage.
[1] http://work.chron.com/thoracic-surgery-salary-3692.html
Edit: even more nonsense: the infographic claims 20,000 hours worked in residency, with only $150k payment for same. There are only 8760 hours in a standard year. Given that residents are paid around $50k (it actually rises throughout the residency, but hey), that means that the infographic has granted only three years for residency. There are only 26280 hours in 3 years (+24 if you're lucky enough for a leap year). That means that they're claiming that residents work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, no breaks, no days off.
That's working from, say, 4am to 10pm, for three years solid, and the rest of the resident's life has to fit in the remaining 6 hours per day - sleeping, eating, washing, commuting.
Also, a GP, whose salary is bringing down that $202k average (it's not specifically for thoracic surgeons), only has to do a 1-year residency. You can't fit 20k hours into a 9k year. And there are tons of GPs out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many women are raised to believe not that they have value in and of themselves but that their value is in their reproductive potential.
I'd say both men and women at some level value themselves in their attractiveness to the opposite sex. Women feel value by being attractive to men. And Men feel value by being attractive to women. Men are attracted to women who display youth and beauty as a proxy for reproductive value, and women are attracted to wealth and status as a proxy for support.
We teach men that their value is in their accomplishments, which is a) more empowering; b) more under their control; and c) more conducive to independence and pursuit of self-realization (in career or in other aspects of life), positions of power, and yes, powerful and high-paid careers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say both men and women at some level value themselves in their attractiveness to the opposite sex. Women feel value by being attractive to men. And Men feel value by being attractive to women. Men are attracted to women who display youth and beauty as a proxy for reproductive value, and women are attracted to wealth and status as a proxy for support.
Sure, but women are taught (mostly subconsciously but in some ways explicitly) that their primary value as human beings is in physical attractiveness when young, in their fertility in their 20s, and in their ability to nurture when older. We teach men that their value is in their accomplishments, which is a) more empowering; b) more under their control; and c) more conducive to independence and pursuit of self-realiz…
For example, let say we take two groups of men in the age of 30. Those in group A have traveled and accomplished a bunch of personal goals, but are at this point jobbing at minimum wage jobs. Those in group B stayed put and studied and work hard to position themselves at high earning jobs. Which group is rewarded highest by society? My bet if they did such study would be group B with a very clear margin.
Men are being taught that their primary value as human is to chase wealth. This causes men take more risk, die at a earlier age, and have a smaller social network to take care of them at old age. Regardless of gender, neither men or women live a life of roses, and being valued for physical attractiveness rather than wealth has benefits and drawbacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. Women tend to choose lower paying jobs, such as teacher, caregiver etc. In general women tend to care about people while men care about things (STEM). Again: biology or social construct Social construct. Look at Asian countries that by all accounts have less gender quality than the west but have more women science graduates. India is double the U.K. on that metric. The fact that Sweden has skewed representation…
>>Just because society doesn't explicitly discriminate against women doesn't mean that it's not telling women that they should be interested in princesses and fairies instead of legos. In my whole life I haven't faced a single situation where parents literally force a doll on their daughter instead of a Lego Kit. You are over stating the whole problem. >>This is entirely parents projecting gender norms onto their kid…
>>Kids are not bots that you train them. Acceptance into peer groups is a major factor, and most kids gravitate to what friends around them are doing, or they go to friends whose area of interest attracts them.
US female, born in 1977. By the time I reached sentient age, my mother had bought, and encouraged relatives to buy for me, literally dozens of dolls, because she had decided at my birth that I would "collect" dolls. I was never very interested in the dolls and she never "forced" me to play with them, but the expectation was nonetheless clear.
For my slightly younger brother, Transformers and Star Wars figures were bought. I played with his toys and preferred them to my own "girl" toys, but it never occurred to me to ask my parents to buy "boy" toys for me. I think they would have if I had asked, but the environment I (and they) grew up in was such that I (and they) were incapable of conceiving of the possibility.
And of course other girls at my elementary school had grown up in the same environment, so all I learned from my peer group/friends was to be interested in stereotypically girly things.
I agree that "society" is such a vague term as to be almost useless, but it doesn't make sense to assume all this behavior is based on conscious decisions by people truly aware of their own preferences (and the alternatives among which they can select a preference).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s just the end symptom of many things I'm not disagreeing, but "systems" is the reason I've often heard in this discussion without ANY real hard data expanding on what these systems precisely are and how they aren't a reflection merely of, let's say, biology. All I see generally when referring to "systems" are anecdotes and high-level conclusions based purely on personal experiences. None of which helps further…
Well there are entire fields of science dedicated to this. It’s like asking someone to “prove philosophy”. It’s not quite the right question.
This entire thread illustrates the confusion – and that there is absolutely no consensus that even an issue exists in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your model only requires that all men are equally sexist. There are, believe it or not, women entrepreneurs (and btw the very conservative Poland is leading the rankings[1]), so even if all male employers were in fact equally sexist, that would just mean female-led companies would out-compete them. [1] http://wbj.pl/poland-high-in-global-women-entrepreneur-leade...
> And your model only requires that all men are equally sexist. Hardly. It just requires that enough men are sexist to discourage women from entering a field in large numbers. One abusive person in a position of power can have a hugely disproportionate impact.
> For example in Sweden, which is doing it's best to increase gender equality, sex differences between men and women maximized http://jamda.ub.gu.se/bitstream/1/833/1/scb_eng_2014.pdf
It’s more likely women simply prefer different occupations, and auto-select for their own happiness.
Should we disregard either sex’s happiness in relentless pursuit of outcome equality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find it useful to adapt to other people, and I believe my cultural background is not as important in my work > I find it useful to be different than other people, I believe I can make use of my unique cultural background in my work So the recruiters in that study decided candidates that make an explicit issue of their ethnicity in their CL would not be the perfect fit for a team (they were asked to select for coh…
If you read the study they show that not only is their social/cultural fit assessed more negatively but also their pure performance assessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The infographic in question specifically referenced thoracic surgeons, who are considerably more likely to experience on-call rotations or emergencies than, say, a family physician. I honestly don't know what your second sentence is referencing. I was simply stating that, contrary to some claims here, many high school teachers absolutely get the entire summer off and don't work much more than 40 hours per week during…
Oh, thoracic surgeons, you say? Well, that just goes to show what utter nonsense the infographic is, because the average thoracic surgeon's salary in the US is not $202,948, but $473,927[1]. 150+% more than claimed. If you told a group of surgeons that their average salary was only $200k, you'd be laughed out of the room. I tell you what else the infographic leaves out: all the free shit doctors get. Doctors get free…
This is false in the US from what I can tell. I have several friends who are GPs and every one had to do a 3 year residency.
For the rest of your post, I think you're arguing less against anything that I said or wrote and more against an imaginary opponent that you've probably met in various forms online in the past and are projecting onto me.
Again, all I wanted to emphasize was that there are many teachers who absolutely get the entire summer off and who do not work much more than 40 hours a week during the school year, if any extra at all. Please consult the original comment I was actually replying to. If you don't contest this, then you probably don't actually disagree with me. I agree with most of your analysis of the infographic, but I never championed the infographic to begin with.
For clarity, here's what I was actually responding to and debunking:
> that only makes sense if you assume teachers barely work more than the school day itself, which seems implausible. It also assumes that teachers work 38 weeks per year. That would mean a 3.5-month summer break, which doesn't really match with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your model only requires that all men are equally sexist. There are, believe it or not, women entrepreneurs (and btw the very conservative Poland is leading the rankings[1]), so even if all male employers were in fact equally sexist, that would just mean female-led companies would out-compete them. [1] http://wbj.pl/poland-high-in-global-women-entrepreneur-leade...
civilian has a point, but what would fix my model, I believe, is that good hiring practices is one among a myriad of variables that affect the bottomline. Business books for ages are trying to give the "formula" to make a business success (and no one succeeded). It is irrealistic to assume that a company with undoubtably better hiring practices would necessarily and immediatelly (or in a short term) beat the competit…
There must be at least one example of an all female company you can point to with clear advantage over mixed-gender competition if the pay gap is at all real, and certainly if it’s over 30% as claimed by, among others, president Obama.
Either the pay gap is too small to matter, or it simply does not exist. So far all evidence favors the latter.
This shouldn’t be surprising—after all wage discrimination has been illegal in United States for over 40 years.
The claim that there’s some widespread corruption, perhaps even a conspiracy, should be treated as any other extraordinary claim. With extraordinary skepticism.