this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
622 points (94.8% liked)

solarpunk memes

3013 readers
3 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

no there’s still a gap per-hour for the same work

The remaining gap is smaller than the margin of error, once you account for every known factor. For example, a man and woman might both have the same job title at the same company, but if the man was working there for a longer period of time, or opts to work more overtime, etc. etc., then naturally he's going to get paid more "for the same work". But about that phrase:

You should understand that, primarily because it'd be absurdly impractical otherwise (no one is going to be examining the individual daily acts of all these people at their jobs), whenever research in this area talks about "same work", they always mean the same job title. So already, that's leaving a lot on the table, of which I gave two examples above (experience and amount of hours/overtime worked).

Fields dominated by men happen to pay more? Why?

You have cause and effect backwards. The fields pay more first, then men are shown to gravitate more toward them. This is partly because men tend to be more likely to prioritize raw earning potential over everything else, versus women, who are more likely to prioritize other things, such as time flexibility/convenience (check out the man/woman ratio of graveyard shift jobs for an eye-opener), commute time, etc. And part of the reason for that is the social pressure for men to be 'the provider', which may have lessened in recent decades, but is definitely still a factor to a degree.

Another big factor is that, as men are more likely to prefer 'working with things', and women are more likely to prefer 'working with people', the inescapable fact that 'things' scale up to a degree of magnitude that 'people' never can, means that the industries that men already tend to favor (STEM), will also be the ones that can scale up and pay more as a result of that. An engineer could be able to manage 1 system now, but be able to manage 10 in the future with technological advances, but even the best nurse on the planet is never going to be able to care for orders of magnitude more people than they can presently.

Why are men socially in a position where they can choose these higher risk occupations?

This is a loaded question. Men aren't any more "socially in a position" to do so than women. Women are completely free to choose these occupations. But by and large, they simply don't. The difference in priority I described above is why. Left to make a free choice, men are simply more likely to risk their safety and lives for a bigger paycheck, than women are.

Construction, oil field workers, logging all seem to have a pretty bad reputation for hostile work environments for women, no?

Okay, really now, let's not pretend there are these throngs of women clamoring to be 'let in' to the roofing industry, or the oil fields, and only aren't working in those fields because of the misogyny of the existing workforce. Please, let's return to reality here.

Why are men more often in positions where this is possible? What gender difference could there possibly be that could make this the case? What sexual dimorphism has led to this difference? What social expectations have we placed upon women that would lead to this? Personally I haven’t a clue.

Again, it's choice, not a difference in opportunity. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on that. Left to their own devices, and given full freedom to choose their professional paths, men and women, by and large, do NOT make the same decisions. In fact, the data has shown that the more egalitarian a society is re sex equality, the more pronounced those differences become (for example, the male skew in engineering tilts harder toward male, and the female skew in nursing tilts harder toward female). This is the opposite of what those who did this research expected to discover, such that it's literally called the "gender equality paradox".

Why would higher risks lead to a higher median salary?

Because if you have two jobs that have equivalent pay and prerequisites, but one is more dangerous than the other, no one will choose it over the safer option, obviously. You have to pay more for dangerous jobs, or no one will do them, unless they literally have no other choice.

9 . Why?

This is the 'working with things' vs. 'working with people' general preference difference between men and women, in action.

Why are men more able to relocate than women?

Once more, you're twisting things. Point 17 doesn't say men are more ABLE, it says they're more WILLING. Difference.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The remaining gap is smaller than the margin of error, once you account for every known factor.

no, it isn't

it'd be absurdly impractical otherwise (no one is going to be examining the individual daily acts of all these people at their jobs),

you know, other than like researchers

You have cause and effect backwards. The fields pay more first, then men are shown to gravitate more toward them

genuinely very funny that you just wrote over 200 words to restate your original very bad arguments

this is circular af

This is a loaded question. Men aren't any more "socially in a position" to do so than women.

sorry i made the critical error of "assuming you had an actual point to make"

unless you're actually out here trying to make a case that FEEEEMAALEESS are just genetically predisposed to being scared of making money

Okay, really now, let's not pretend there are these throngs of women clamoring to be 'let in' to the roofing industry

you're right the second x chromosome makes them completely incapable of laying tiles upon other tiles

genuinely what point do you think you're making?

are you actually unironically trying to claim that there aren't incredibly real social barriers to entry for women trying to get into the construction industry, for example?

Left to make a free choice, men are simply more likely to risk their safety and lives for a bigger paycheck, than women are

wow super weird that the gender class that isn't expected to care for the next generation for 15-18 years is treated as more sacrificial i wonder how that could have happened i guess science will never know

In fact, the data has shown that the more egalitarian a society is re sex equality, the more pronounced those differences become

i don't really have anything to say here other than the fact that this just straight up isn't true

a lot easier to argue for a point when you're willing to just make shit up, i guess

no one will choose it over the safer option, obviously.

just casually ignoring the side of the risk where you die and make no money, i guess

i actually love that you think everybody can succeed in what is almost by definition the zero-sum game of venture capitalism it's very sweet

This is the 'working with things' vs. 'working with people' general preference difference between men and women, in action.

wow i can't wait to see the evidence that you provide to prove this is genetic and not social predisposition it will turn the field on its head

oh what's that? you don't have that evidence

WEIRD

Point 17 doesn't say men are more ABLE, it says they're more WILLING.

oh weird please could you link the study that sufficiently justifies men are more willing rather than more able to relocate?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

no, it isn’t

"When the BLS reports that women working full-time in 2020 earned 82.3% of what men earned working full-time, that is very much different from saying that women earned 82.3% of what men earned for doing exactly the same work while working the exact same number of hours in the same occupation, with exactly the same educational background and exactly the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and with exactly the same marital and family (e.g., number of children) status....once we start controlling individually for the many relevant factors that affect earnings, e.g., hours worked, age, marital status, and having children, most of the raw earnings differential disappears."

Done with your ignorant "nuh uh" garbage. Go ahead and cling to your misogyny boogeyman, you're clearly more interested in maintaining your own assumptions and biases, than the truth. This nonsense is literally equivalent to the creationist "god of the gaps" fallacious argument, where any empty spot in the evolutionary record is assumed by the creationist to be 'God did it, right there'. Then, whenever we find a transitional fossil Z between X and Y, suddenly God's role is no longer between X and Y, but between X and Z, and Z and Y, ad infinitum.

The bottom line is that there is literally zero evidence that any statistically-significant portion of the gap between the sexes' average early earnings IS caused by sexism. This is just something people like you assume, because you're too simple-minded to consider that a difference in outcome between two demographics could be caused by anything but bigotry toward one of them. And it's another level of simple-mindedness to continue to cling to that assumption even after you've been made aware of well over a dozen factors that account for various chunks of the gap, making it clear that 'turns out there can in fact be other reasons for this disparity to exist'. The misogyny 'God' in that ever-shrinking gap--the straw you cling to constantly shortening. Ideologue narrative-clinging is pitiable.

I'm not going to entertain your "prove it's not" nonsense, that's not how it works. Enjoy your delusional boogeyman hunt, I guess.

P.S. Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality? Like Saudi Arabia, where women only recently became legally allowed to drive, and Egypt, which has the second highest rate of sexual harassment on Earth. Whoops, another massive wrench in your delusional assumption, how about that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Done with your ignorant "nuh uh" garbage

ah yes because you're backing up everything you say with sources, and not just spouting shit

this is the first time you've tried to cite something to back yourself up, and the thing you chose to cite agrees with me.

"most of the raw earnings differential": you know that "most" doesn't mean "all", right?

so what we have here is you saying something that's wrong, me telling you it's wrong, you proving to both of us that it's wrong, and then you complaining that i'm telling you it's wrong

I'm not going to entertain your "prove it's not" nonsense, that's not how it works

either you're utterly inept enough to get burden of proof completely ass-backwards, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it here because you're arguing in bad faith

obviously i wouldn't accuse you of being utterly inept because it would be rude so i would ask that you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the high standards set by the rest of your "wage gap is a myth" folks

to clarify: you're making the claim that women are genetically predisposed to behave in a certain way, so it's you who gets to back that up

Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality?

i'm pretty sure i know the exact study you're citing (well not citing, vaguely gesturing towards) which is why i'm so confident that it's nonsense

if it's the one i'm thinking of, they completely misuse a statistical indicator so badly that they literally invert the trend in their data

 

i'll make this really simple for you. you need to make a convincing case that either:

  • our social system doesn't typically expect the bulk of childcare to fall on women
  • the bulk of childcare falling on one parent over the other doesn't impact the amount of flexibility that parent has in their schedule

otherwise, we've just demonstrated systemic sexism present in the wage gap

(i know you won't reply to this because you know that you can't make that convincing case; this is more for the benefit of future viewers)