this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
405 points (97.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5878 readers
4106 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I seem to recall that was the figure like 15 years ago. Has it not improved in all this time?
In (West-) Germany it's still 18%. Been more or less constant since 2006.
Source: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Labour/Labour-Market/Quality-Employment/Dimension1/1_5_GenderPayGap.html
That stat wasn't even real when it was published.
The data from that study didn’t even compare similar fields.
It compared a Walmart worker to a doctor lol.
It was a wild study.
In an ideal world it would be nice to be able to do that, but in our it's just misleading.
Graduating medical classes have been majority female for 20 years now.
If anything, the user you responded to was demonstrating subconscious biases against female doctors lol
Way worse than that.
What? Lol
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/outdoor-play-children#why-it-matters
https://news.exeter.ac.uk/faculty-of-health-and-life-sciences/by-aged-two-girls-are-already-playing-outside-less-than-boys/
https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/03/why-women-clean-more-than-men-because-they-re-judged-for-the-mess.html
Children need to play in the mud and get messy. It's good for them. But girls are being discouraged from playing outside. And being able, psychologically, to deal with mess is an important life skill needed for lots of jobs. Including being a doctor. It's better to learn these skills earlier rather than later.
Cool. Drag guesses that means they must have been majority male up until 21 years ago. That explains why most doctors were still male 15 years ago.
OK, chief.
You were clearly thinking of mechanical engineers, I get those confused all the time as well.
Seriously? What is this drivel. It's not 1950 anymore.
Sorry. Drag forgot that sexism was abolished forever in 2016 when the United States elected a woman president
It varies greatly depending on where you live. In rural, conservative areas women tend to make a lot less. On the other hand, some northeast and west coast cities have higher average salaries for women than men.
I think this may be because women are outpacing men in education in some areas, so it’s not based on gender necessarily but qualifications.
Yep, women are more likely to get a college degree.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gap-between-men-and-women-in-college-completion/
Also, the disparity is larger or smaller in different ethnic/cultural groups. Can be skewed NY excluding certain strongly gender dominated fields (like finance) etc.
I believe certain job fields come much closer to being 1:1 as well, though I've only heard that anecdotally
Reverse Sexism >:O
Not sure where it's higher outside of the field of sex work.
Women still have to bear children, and pregnancy takes a heavy toll on the body, which often results in several fewer years in the workforce, on average.
Unless that changes — or we start paying mothers with less experience more money — there will always be a gap.
Edit: because liberals/tankies like to ignore reality as much as fascists when the truth is inconvenient.
"the arrival of children has a large and persistent impact on the gender earnings gap, reducing female earnings by 55 per cent, on average, in the 5 years following parenthood. We further show, using personal income tax data collected by the Australian Tax Office (ATO), that this gap improves only slightly but remains high in the 10 years following the arrival of children."
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/05/reduce-motherhood-penalty-gender-pay-gap/
https://theconversation.com/the-motherhood-pay-gap-why-womens-earnings-decline-after-having-children-220207
Your links, especially the WEF link, support the correlation, but explicitly describe a confounding variable as being household work (especially childcare). And that's consistent with the observation that the motherhood penalty has a different magnitude for different countries and different industries. All that suggests that a combination of household division of labor, parental leave policies (either employer policies or government regulations), and workplace accommodations generally can make a big difference.
None of this is inevitable or immutable. We can learn from the countries and the industries where the motherhood penalty is lower, or doesn't last as long.
I agree, but the fact remains that as long as only women can bear children, women (statistically) will always take more time off than men — in a sane world several months per child at an absolute minimum to limit physical and mental stress to the mother/child — thus the statistics will always reflect a pay gap when compared to males, and if the goal is reducing the pay gap to zero this is impossible (esp under capitalism, for the foreseeable future). Even if men took identical time off they'd still have a much lower physical stress.
Australia's maternity leave and social benefits are in the upper percentiles of the developed world, and the ATO/Treasury figures I shared are in spite of those benefits. There is simply no way to give mothers back time to recoup lost work xp, and that would be a horrifically poor goal anyway.
My argument isn't that women don't deserve equal pay for equal work (incl xp, in whichever jobs that legitimately matters). It's that there will always be a gap as long as there are inherent biological differences which naturally result in career variances between genders, and the only thing that should matter is whether that difference is fair and non-discriminatory. Most of the real stats I've seen over the last decade (as in, produced by demographers and statisticians; not rage bait for clicks) don't show a significant pay gap in the developed world, when the natural biological variance is accounted for. If you've seen anything that indicates otherwise, go ahead and share it.
Wow. That's about the dumbest thing I've read. You have contributed nothing to the discussion, and made us all measurably stupider in the process. Well done.
Great work. With strong arguments like that you're sure to discredit fascism and advance feminism! You are as asset to the conservative PsyOps machine, comrade!
"the arrival of children has a large and persistent impact on the gender earnings gap, reducing female earnings by 55 per cent, on average, in the 5 years following parenthood. We further show, using personal income tax data collected by the Australian Tax Office (ATO), that this gap improves only slightly but remains high in the 10 years following the arrival of children."
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/05/reduce-motherhood-penalty-gender-pay-gap/
https://theconversation.com/the-motherhood-pay-gap-why-womens-earnings-decline-after-having-children-220207
Your entire argument is specious. Nobody but you made any reference to lifetime earnings. Also, you have admitted, quite directly, to being a fascist.
So blow it out your ass, idiot. Since everything coming from you is shit, anyways.
So in addition to poor reasoning skills, you also have poor literacy skills and reading comprehension... I am unsurprised.
Could you help me understand where his argument is specious?
His primary argument was all about lifetime earning potential. That is not what salary refers to. So, his argument doesn't actually apply to the allegation. Therefore, it is specious.
I can't see where his argument was about lifetime earning potential. Seems to be just simply women with children make less money, which seems reasonable.
I also don't see anywhere he even implied that salary and lifetime earning potential were the same thing. And salary would be reflected in lifetime earning potential.
What is your position? I'm not even certain what the point of your disagreement is.
I have come to the conclusion that their position is mental illness, because everything they've typed so far is non-sensical.
I don't see the point of your rambling.
Salary does not equal lifetime earning.
It's a blatant bait and switch.
However, I don't give a fuck what you, or he, thinks....
I didn't realize every woman you've ever met in your life became a mother.
Statistics are gonna blow your mind!
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Average