homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The trouble with girls (Page 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The trouble with girls
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?

In the bit I've quoted above, you're assuming that the employer is a perfectly rational profit maximizer; since such a person would of course take advantage of any obvious bargain on women's labor in a way that would lead to a result ("that employer would never again hire a man for that job") that we don't, in fact, observe, you then conclude that therefore no such bargains are on offer (i.e. there's no pay gap for equal work.)

But this is not a good argument against claims of sexism, because sexist employers are not perfectly rational profit maximizers. They pay women less because their biases lead them to value women's work less than men's, even if by objective standards the work is of equal quality - this is inherent in their sexism.

You can't start your argument that employers aren't sexist by assuming that employers aren't sexist.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But . . . he does. For the last 11 pages, that's what he's done, which is why there's so little point in continuing.

Eventually, people will stop objecting to the illogic from sheer exhaustion and drop out of the thread, leaving the last word to Bibliophile, which he will take as confirmation that he was right all along.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Let them have the last word. Words are cheap."

Child discipline advice I read in a teaching resource book years ago

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Perhaps you could explain what you think is incorrect about that paragraph?

You assume absolute free movement of labour and free availability of equivalent jobs. You then go on to assert that the problem of labour relations lie with labour unions rather than exploitative employers.

None of that is the real world.

It doesn't assume absolute free movement of labour
and availability of equivalent jobs. Difficulty in moving and limited availability of equivalent jobs would have been key factor in reducing the market value of the workers. Workers the sought to increase their market value by artificially restricting the supply of alternate labour, through things like picket lines. Whether they were justified in attempting to do so is another topic.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
there doesn't have to be. the 'value' of the work is not the value of profit the work generates. The value of the work is the level of salary that maximises employer profit. So for example one type of job may have a plentiful supply of good labour willing to work for low wages whilst being highly profitable. In that job profits might be maximised by low wages. Another job may be in a much less profitable area of the economy and require a very specialist labour force which is in limited supply. In that case the level of salary required to attract suitable employees and thereby maximise profits might be much higher even though the overall level of profits might be lower.

Quite so, contrary to what you said above, wages are almost nothing to do with profits gained and everything to do with power and institutional structures in an organisation.

The person at the top is paid multiple times the person at the bottom - not because the person at the bottom makes less money for the company (which is rarely true) but because there is a power relationship and the demand is higher for higher status jobs at the top. Supply and demand is such that to get these jobs, you pay more wages even if there is little relationship between the top guy and profitability, the argument being that to get someone who can make the right decisions in the pressure of the boardroom, you need to pay to get the correct skills.

Now, the fact is that women don't get to these top jobs. The further up you go in an organisation, the fewer women there are.

So explain, without resorting to stupid arguments that you have already refuted about pay and profitability, why that is.

The market value for chief executives tends to be very high because there will be no other single employee in large company who is as likely to have such a big impact on company profits. Chief directors renumeration may be very high bu still be a small part of overall company turnover. I suspect that the reason why women more rarely reach these positions is that in such a highly competitive field those that reach the top are more likely to be single minded workaholics who devote all their enery to climbing the corporate ladder to the neglect of work/life balance, family or anything else, and that these are more likely to be men.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[QB]If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?

Yes, this is why sweatshop workers skew enormously towards female.

In that case there are more women doing work of lower market value. Men doing work of equally low market value get paid the same.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By gum, this is hard work.

And why do you think it is that women's work is so often undervalued? Do you think it could be because the system is institutionally sexist to the extent that the jobs flexible enough to cope with the needs of women are usually low paid?

What would society look like if childcare was not something which significantly affected pay and work choices?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But . . . he does. For the last 11 pages, that's what he's done, which is why there's so little point in continuing. ...

Clearly prejudice will never be a problem for someone who thinks fairness is also a prejudice.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?

In the bit I've quoted above, you're assuming that the employer is a perfectly rational profit maximizer; since such a person would of course take advantage of any obvious bargain on women's labor in a way that would lead to a result ("that employer would never again hire a man for that job") that we don't, in fact, observe, you then conclude that therefore no such bargains are on offer (i.e. there's no pay gap for equal work.)

But this is not a good argument against claims of sexism, because sexist employers are not perfectly rational profit maximizers. They pay women less because their biases lead them to value women's work less than men's, even if by objective standards the work is of equal quality - this is inherent in their sexism.

You can't start your argument that employers aren't sexist by assuming that employers aren't sexist.

Employers might very well be sexist. What I am saying is that I am seeing no convincing evidence that sexism from employers is causing them to either pay women less than their market value or to pay men more than their market value. There is no consistent pattern here. In a number of areas women get paid more than men for example women bakers get paid more than male bakers on average, women under 35 working full time more than men under 35 working full time. If it were really sexism would a more consistent pattern be seen. Indeed famously of course one of he areas where women get paid much more than men in in pornography where female performers get paid far more than male performers. Now that is one industry where you would have thought that the producers were most likely to be genuine woman haters but whatever feelings they have about women doesn't affect what they pay because what they pay is driven by the market value, supply and demand, rather than their personal feelings.

The one bit of evidence that is produced is the comparisons of 'work of equal value' done in male dominated and female dominated jobs (e.g. kitchen assistants and refuse collectors). However these type of evaluations do not convince because they are often comparing apples and oranges. Their measurements about what constitutes work or equal quality will inevitably be subjective but even if you could objectively measure work of 'equal quality' that wouldn't equal equal value. Work of equal quality may have entirely different market value in different jobs.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
By gum, this is hard work.

And why do you think it is that women's work is so often undervalued? Do you think it could be because the system is institutionally sexist to the extent that the jobs flexible enough to cope with the needs of women are usually low paid?

What would society look like if childcare was not something which significantly affected pay and work choices?

I never said that women's work is undervalued. The word 'undervalued' suggests that low wage valuation for some female jobs is an error and that employers could make more money if only they offered better pay. I'm suggesting that these jobs have low pay not because the employees are being undervalued but because their market value really is that low.

The more flexible jobs tend to be less well paid not because of institutional sexism but because those jobs really do have a lower market value.

A society where childcare did not make a significant impact on pay and work choices would be a society where childcare didn't have a significant impact on work.

[ 03. July 2015, 13:33: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:


The more flexible jobs tend to be less well paid not because of institutional sexism but because those jobs really do have a lower market value.

Explain. Stop asserting, make an argument why. I am arguing that they have a lower market rate because of ingrained sexism. So what is your argument - that women are somehow not suited the the higher paid work?

quote:
A society where childcare did not make a significant impact on pay and work choices would be a society where childcare didn't have a significant impact on work.
Exactly, and one where more women might earn more money, correct?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
By gum, this is hard work.

And why do you think it is that women's work is so often undervalued? Do you think it could be because the system is institutionally sexist to the extent that the jobs flexible enough to cope with the needs of women are usually low paid?

What would society look like if childcare was not something which significantly affected pay and work choices?

I never said that women's work is undervalued. The word 'undervalued' suggests that low wage valuation for some female jobs is an error and that employers could make more money if only they offered better pay. I'm suggesting that these jobs have low pay not because the employees are being undervalued but because their market value really is that low.

The more flexible jobs tend to be less well paid not because of institutional sexism but because those jobs really do have a lower market value.


Employers don't ever pay according to the value of a job. They pay entirely on the basis of how little they can get away with paying. That's little if anything to do with sexism but an awful lot to do with business.

Maybe the problem is in women's hands after all. Maybe they should fight harder and ignore those who try to rationalise away their claims to a decent wage, equal or not.

(eta for UBB)

[ 03. July 2015, 13:48: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But . . . he does. For the last 11 pages, that's what he's done, which is why there's so little point in continuing.

Eventually, people will stop objecting to the illogic from sheer exhaustion and drop out of the thread, leaving the last word to Bibliophile, which he will take as confirmation that he was right all along.

This.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?

In the bit I've quoted above, you're assuming that the employer is a perfectly rational profit maximizer; since such a person would of course take advantage of any obvious bargain on women's labor in a way that would lead to a result ("that employer would never again hire a man for that job") that we don't, in fact, observe, you then conclude that therefore no such bargains are on offer (i.e. there's no pay gap for equal work.)

But this is not a good argument against claims of sexism, because sexist employers are not perfectly rational profit maximizers. They pay women less because their biases lead them to value women's work less than men's, even if by objective standards the work is of equal quality - this is inherent in their sexism.

You can't start your argument that employers aren't sexist by assuming that employers aren't sexist.

Employers might very well be sexist.
Then you agree to abandon the line of argument I quoted? Because if they might be sexist, it doesn't make sense to base an argument on the premise that they're perfectly rational profit maximizers.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now that Biblophile has come full circle and argued against his own position, is there any point in continuing this discussion?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Now that Biblophile has come full circle and argued against his own position, is there any point in continuing this discussion?

Was there ever any point in the discussion to begin with?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
By gum, this is hard work.

And why do you think it is that women's work is so often undervalued? Do you think it could be because the system is institutionally sexist to the extent that the jobs flexible enough to cope with the needs of women are usually low paid?

What would society look like if childcare was not something which significantly affected pay and work choices?

I never said that women's work is undervalued. The word 'undervalued' suggests that low wage valuation for some female jobs is an error and that employers could make more money if only they offered better pay. I'm suggesting that these jobs have low pay not because the employees are being undervalued but because their market value really is that low.

The more flexible jobs tend to be less well paid not because of institutional sexism but because those jobs really do have a lower market value.


Employers don't ever pay according to the value of a job. They pay entirely on the basis of how little they can get away with paying. That's little if anything to do with sexism but an awful lot to do with business.
If you mean that employers will try to set wages as low as possible before they get to the point where extra costs incurred in turnover and substandard staff start to outweigh the savings from not increasing wages.

What I am saying is that wage level simply IS the market value of the job. 'Value' here is simply another word for price. 'Undervaluing' a workforce in this context simply means underestimating the cost of the most profitable workforce.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Then you agree to abandon the line of argument I quoted? Because if they might be sexist, it doesn't make sense to base an argument on the premise that they're perfectly rational profit maximizers.

Did you read the rest of my reply. My point was that even if some employers are sexist there is no evidence that such feelings of sexism are influencing them to pay women below their true market value. Is there evidence for example that employers in female dominated jobs lose more money as a result of underestimating he wage cost of the most profitable possible workforce? For example mr cheesy above said that clothing machinist employers are maximising their profits by paying low wages. Is there any evidence that he is wrong and that they would make even more money if they raised wages?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's a math problem, Bibliophile:

Last month, a manager in another department of my agency hired two new staff to work with his caseload: one male, one female.

Like me, he needs staff of both genders, because some of our clients cannot work with one or the other gender. In our field, these staff are required to have at least a high school education, a reliable, insured vehicle, a good driving record, and must pass a police check.

This manager hired the woman, who exceeds the education standard by having a year of college to her credit (no field experience), at the agency's base pay level: $10.25/hour. He hired the man, who has a general equivalency diploma (no field experience) at $10.75/hour.

Please compute the market value of this job.

[ 03. July 2015, 15:51: Message edited by: Porridge ]

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you mean that employers will try to set wages as low as possible before they get to the point where extra costs incurred in turnover and substandard staff start to outweigh the savings from not increasing wages.

What I am saying is that wage level simply IS the market value of the job. 'Value' here is simply another word for price. 'Undervaluing' a workforce in this context simply means underestimating the cost of the most profitable workforce.

Ah, of course it didn't take long for Bibliophile to pull out that chestnut so treasured by American conservatives: the "magic" (and magically "free") marketplace which magically adjusts to ensure every wage and every price is precisely, exactly what it should be according to the magical laws of supply and demand. Used to argue against Obamacare and safety and EPA regulations and all sorts of other government "interference". Huh.

Yeah, it's worked so well for us here in the US, I'm just sure y'all will find it's magic just as winsome as we do. [Killing me]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Then you agree to abandon the line of argument I quoted? Because if they might be sexist, it doesn't make sense to base an argument on the premise that they're perfectly rational profit maximizers.

Did you read the rest of my reply.
I did read the rest of your reply, but it didn't address my objection. Here, let me refresh your memory. You said:
quote:
If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?
This is clearly an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, "an argument which seeks ... to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance." But you've built the intended conclusion (there aren't pay gaps for equal work based on sexism or anything else) into your premise by assuming employers are perfectly rational profit maximizers - which obviously wouldn't be the case if they were sexist. This is fallacious reasoning.

I'm not addressing any other arguments you may have; I just want to see if you can recognize what's wrong with this one.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Here's a math problem, Bibliophile:

Last month, a manager in another department of my agency hired two new staff to work with his caseload: one male, one female.

Like me, he needs staff of both genders, because some of our clients cannot work with one or the other gender. In our field, these staff are required to have at least a high school education, a reliable, insured vehicle, a good driving record, and must pass a police check.

This manager hired the woman, who exceeds the education standard by having a year of college to her credit (no field experience), at the agency's base pay level: $10.25/hour. He hired the man, who has a general equivalency diploma (no field experience) at $10.75/hour.

Please compute the market value of this job.

Well the manager obviously think that that market value of the first hire in that job was $10.25/hour and the value of the second hire in that job was $10.75/hour. As you have given virtually no information about either the new employees or the work they do I have no way of judging why one might have been valued a little higher than the other.

You mention that the women candidate had a year's college credit but without knowing either the nature of the work nor indeed knowing what she was studying in that year I've no idea if that had any impact on her suitability for the job.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you mean that employers will try to set wages as low as possible before they get to the point where extra costs incurred in turnover and substandard staff start to outweigh the savings from not increasing wages.

What I am saying is that wage level simply IS the market value of the job. 'Value' here is simply another word for price. 'Undervaluing' a workforce in this context simply means underestimating the cost of the most profitable workforce.

Ah, of course it didn't take long for Bibliophile to pull out that chestnut so treasured by American conservatives: the "magic" (and magically "free") marketplace which magically adjusts to ensure every wage and every price is precisely, exactly what it should be according to the magical laws of supply and demand. Used to argue against Obamacare and safety and EPA regulations and all sorts of other government "interference". Huh.

Yeah, it's worked so well for us here in the US, I'm just sure y'all will find it's magic just as winsome as we do. [Killing me]

I never suggested that employers will always magically succeed in setting wages
at the most profitable level but that's certainly what they are aiming to do and they have a strong financial interest in succeeding as well as they can.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Then you agree to abandon the line of argument I quoted? Because if they might be sexist, it doesn't make sense to base an argument on the premise that they're perfectly rational profit maximizers.

Did you read the rest of my reply.
I did read the rest of your reply, but it didn't address my objection. Here, let me refresh your memory. You said:
quote:
If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?
This is clearly an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, "an argument which seeks ... to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance." But you've built the intended conclusion (there aren't pay gaps for equal work based on sexism or anything else) into your premise by assuming employers are perfectly rational profit maximizers - which obviously wouldn't be the case if they were sexist. This is fallacious reasoning.

I'm not addressing any other arguments you may have; I just want to see if you can recognize what's wrong with this one.

If some employers are failing to be perfectly rational profit maximisers because of sexism then that gives a great opportunity for more efficient employers get get an edge over them in a competitive marketplace. To suggest that all employers are making the same misjudgment despite not only financial but also social and legal pressure not to make this kind of error is incredible, and indeed there is no evidence that this is the case.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Here's a math problem, Bibliophile:

Last month, a manager in another department of my agency hired two new staff to work with his caseload: one male, one female.

Like me, he needs staff of both genders, because some of our clients cannot work with one or the other gender. In our field, these staff are required to have at least a high school education, a reliable, insured vehicle, a good driving record, and must pass a police check.

This manager hired the woman, who exceeds the education standard by having a year of college to her credit (no field experience), at the agency's base pay level: $10.25/hour. He hired the man, who has a general equivalency diploma (no field experience) at $10.75/hour.

Please compute the market value of this job.

Well the manager obviously think that that market value of the first hire in that job was $10.25/hour and the value of the second hire in that job was $10.75/hour. As you have given virtually no information about either the new employees or the work they do I have no way of judging why one might have been valued a little higher than the other.

You mention that the women candidate had a year's college credit but without knowing either the nature of the work nor indeed knowing what she was studying in that year I've no idea if that had any impact on her suitability for the job.

The two do the same work, sometimes but not always with the same clients. Here's what they do:

1. Meet with families who have at least one child age 0-to-3 with one or more developmental disabilities.

2. Determine what services the family &/or child needs in order to maintain that child in the family home (as opposed to institutionalizing the child).

3. Develop (with input from family & service providers) a service plan designed to help the family care for the developmentally-disabled child, along with a budget for these services.

4. Implement and monitor the services & do regular visitation to monitor progress.

5. Keep records of all this, and maintain responsibility for calling team meetings if/when adjustments to the service plan seem indicated.

The female hire had one year at a community college taking basic college-level courses; she planned to major in human services, but majors aren't typically chosen until the second or even third year of college; she couldn't afford to continue. Nevertheless, she had more education than the male hire.

The male hire had not graduated high school but did complete a general equivalency diploma 2-3 years after dropping out of public high school.

Neither had previous work experience in this field. Both have driver's licenses and insured vehicles, and are close in age.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The two do the same work, sometimes but not always with the same clients. Here's what they do:

1. Meet with families who have at least one child age 0-to-3 with one or more developmental disabilities.

2. Determine what services the family &/or child needs in order to maintain that child in the family home (as opposed to institutionalizing the child).

3. Develop (with input from family & service providers) a service plan designed to help the family care for the developmentally-disabled child, along with a budget for these services.

4. Implement and monitor the services & do regular visitation to monitor progress.

5. Keep records of all this, and maintain responsibility for calling team meetings if/when adjustments to the service plan seem indicated.

The female hire had one year at a community college taking basic college-level courses; she planned to major in human services, but majors aren't typically chosen until the second or even third year of college; she couldn't afford to continue. Nevertheless, she had more education than the male hire.

The male hire had not graduated high school but did complete a general equivalency diploma 2-3 years after dropping out of public high school.

Neither had previous work experience in this field. Both have driver's licenses and insured vehicles, and are close in age.

Well there doesn't seem to be any obvious difference between the candidates on paper. The year at the community college doesn't seem particularly relevant to the work. So I'm still not clear why the male candidate got the extra $0.50/hour. That could have been because of some other difference or it could have been because of the impression he made in the interview. If you don't know you could always ask the manager in question why he did that.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There is an assumption bound up in that process about the worth of having the father largely present during the early months of the child's life.

Looking after a small child and its family is not just about who feeds the baby.

Of course, but that's not my assumption. My assumption is that having both parents take a year or two off work for each child is unaffordable, so the couple have to pick one parent.

I agree that having fathers largely present in the early months of their children's lives is valuable, but my contention is that given a straight choice between having the mother stay home with the children and having the father do so, the average rational couple will choose to have the mother stay home. This doesn't at all discount the value of fathers.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
my contention is that given a straight choice between having the mother stay home with the children and having the father do so, the average rational couple will choose to have the mother stay home. This doesn't at all discount the value of fathers.

The average rational couple will choose to have the lowest wage earner stay home. Which is why, more often than not, the mother stays at home.

Whatever bibliophile says, it's not a free choice.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The average rational couple will choose to have the lowest wage earner stay home. Which is why, more often than not, the mother stays at home.

Yes, indeed. I mentioned that in my earlier post. My assertion is that even if we fix the pay gap, or consider parents with equal incomes (maybe even identical jobs), then the average rational couple will still select the mother to be the stay-at-home parent, and that this then generates a pay gap.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If some employers are failing to be perfectly rational profit maximisers because of sexism then that gives a great opportunity for more efficient employers get get an edge over them in a competitive marketplace.

OK, so now you apparently think the existence of any perfectly rational profit maximizers is sufficient to drive all irrational behavior out of the marketplace. Is it perhaps the case that you have never worked for an actual company?
quote:
To suggest that all employers are making the same misjudgment despite not only financial but also social and legal pressure not to make this kind of error is incredible, and indeed there is no evidence that this is the case.
What social and legal pressure there is now exists precisely because of the pre-existing pervasive systemic bias against women; it's ludicrous to invoke the reaction to that bias as some kind of proof that the bias can't possibly exist any more.

Less than 100 years have passed since women even won the right to vote in the US; it seems to me that perhaps the burden is on you to show that the discrimination has ended, not the other way around.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well there doesn't seem to be any obvious difference between the candidates on paper.

No? An entire year's worth of college set against a GED doesn't look like a difference to you? Would it look different if the male hire had it and not the female hire?

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The year at the community college doesn't seem particularly relevant to the work.

The general practice at my agency is to "reward" additional education or experience in our field with higher pay rates.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So I'm still not clear why the male candidate got the extra $0.50/hour.

But I thought this was all about the "market value" of the job. Isn't that what you've been suggesting? All I'm asking you to do is compute the market value of a job. Is it $10.25/hr or $10.75/hr?

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
That could have been because of some other difference

Like one of them being male, for example?

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
or it could have been because of the impression he made in the interview.

Oh, so "impressions" are part of the market value of a job?

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you don't know you could always ask the manager in question why he did that.

Oh, I assure you that I do know. I've worked there for some time. I am the only female manager among a fairly largish crowd of male managers, and I was offered $2,000 per year less than they were making, and I had 8 years' experience plus a master's degree and publications in our field when I joined the agency.

When they offered the job, I refused it unless they raised the salary by $4,000. They agreed.

[code]

[ 07. July 2015, 05:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If some employers are failing to be perfectly rational profit maximisers because of sexism then that gives a great opportunity for more efficient employers get get an edge over them in a competitive marketplace.

OK, so now you apparently think the existence of any perfectly rational profit maximizers is sufficient to drive all irrational behavior out of the marketplace.
Of course not. Competition however does provide a considerable force against these kinds of misjudgements particularly when it is combined with social and legal pressure.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
To suggest that all employers are making the same misjudgment despite not only financial but also social and legal pressure not to make this kind of error is incredible, and indeed there is no evidence that this is the case.
What social and legal pressure there is now exists precisely because of the pre-existing pervasive systemic bias against women; it's ludicrous to invoke the reaction to that bias as some kind of proof that the bias can't possibly exist any more.

Less than 100 years have passed since women even won the right to vote in the US; it seems to me that perhaps the burden is on you to show that the discrimination has ended, not the other way around.

Feminism isn't simply some kind of popular backlash. It wouldn't have got very far if it had been. Its something that is encouraged and promoted by those at the highest level of society and politics.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well there doesn't seem to be any obvious difference between the candidates on paper.

No? An entire year's worth of college set against a GED doesn't look like a difference to you? Would it look different if the male hire had it and not the female hire?
Not really. 'College credit' didn't exist in my day. If people went into higher education they either ended up with a degree or they didn't. If the year at college was studying anything with specific relevance to the job then I don't really see it adds much in the way of value.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The year at the community college doesn't seem particularly relevant to the work.

The general practice at my agency is to "reward" additional education or experience in our field with higher pay rates.
I'm glad you put 'reward' in quote marks. No one deserves extra money because they have a bit of paper from an educational institution. Its just a way of helping employers estimate how good a particular potential employee is.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So I'm still not clear why the male candidate got the extra $0.50/hour.

But I thought this was all about the "market value" of the job. Isn't that what you've been suggesting? All I'm asking you to do is compute the market value of a job. Is it $10.25/hr or $10.75/hr?
The value of a job doesn't have to be a single figure. Some jobs will have everyone in that job paid a fixed pay grade. In others employees will be paid over a range. This is clearly an example of the latter. Anyway what's your thoughts? What do you think the value was. Was the male employee overpaid or underpaid or paid the right amount? Was the female employee overpaid or underpaid or paid the right amount?

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
That could have been because of some other difference

Like one of them being male, for example?
Well you're clearly convinced that was the reason.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
or it could have been because of the impression he made in the interview.

Oh, so "impressions" are part of the market value of a job?
Well they're certainly part of the assessment of the value of an individual candidate's value for a job.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you don't know you could always ask the manager in question why he did that.

Oh, I assure you that I do know. I've worked there for some time. I am the only female manager among a fairly largish crowd of male managers, and I was offered $2,000 per year less than they were making, and I had 8 years' experience plus a master's degree and publications in our field when I joined the agency.

When they offered the job, I refused it unless they raised the salary by $4,000. They agreed.

Right so your workplace is such a hotbed of sexism that when you demanded a salary that was $2,000 a year more than that of the male managers who were already there they agree to it.

[ 07. July 2015, 16:08: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You seem to have skipped over the bit where they offered 2 grand less than the going starting salary for managers.

The fact is that women generally accept what employers offer, while men sometimes ask for more. On being told I could have the job at my asking price, I was informed that a major part of the decision was based on my having the, um, temerity (a different, gender-based word was used in the actual discussion) to negotiate for a higher salary, as negotiation among opposed & competing interests is actually part of the manager's job.

Note that in discussion with, erm, fellow managers, not one of them admits to having asked for a higher salary when offered the job, and thereby apparently lack the, um, temerity which I demonstrated having.

But you don't see any sexism involved, despite the fact that women apply for this job opening (when it happens, which is rarely) at a rate of 3 or 4 women applicants for every 1 male applicant? And I am the only woman ever hired for the position in the last 14 years?

You may want to get your eyes checked.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You seem to have skipped over the bit where they offered 2 grand less than the going starting salary for managers.

Well the fact that they went so quickly from offering to grand less to agreeing to 2 grand more suggests they are willing to be flexible about such things in an effort to maximise revenue. It doesn't by itself indicate sexism. If they had been that sexist they wouldn't have thought you were worth paying the extra 2 grand.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The fact is that women generally accept what employers offer, while men sometimes ask for more. On being told I could have the job at my asking price, I was informed that a major part of the decision was based on my having the, um, temerity (a different, gender-based word was used in the actual discussion) to negotiate for a higher salary, as negotiation among opposed & competing interests is actually part of the manager's job.

Indeed. A willingness to negotiate pay is indeed an important part of many employers evaluation of their employees worth. It gives an indication of their employees self evaluation of their worth and also helps employers reduce staff turnover costs. Your employers clearly thought it was important. As you have pointed out a major part of the pay gap is due not to sexism but to a greater willingness of men to negotiate pay.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Note that in discussion with, erm, fellow managers, not one of them admits to having asked for a higher salary when offered the job, and thereby apparently lack the, um, temerity which I demonstrated having.

It would seem odd that men in general are more willing to negotiate pay than women but in you workplace it would be the opposite. Are you sure they didn't negotiate their pay or was it just they didn't confirm to you that they had.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But you don't see any sexism involved, despite the fact that women apply for this job opening (when it happens, which is rarely) at a rate of 3 or 4 women applicants for every 1 male applicant? And I am the only woman ever hired for the position in the last 14 years?

You may want to get your eyes checked.

Well I've no idea about your employer's staffing policy. Its possible that your bosses are losing money by not correctly assessing who are the best job applicants. However given the small size of the pay gap when other major factors are taken into account, given the complete absence of a pay gap for the under 35s, given the general lack of evidence for widespread sexual discrimination in job hiring it does seem like employers losing money in this way is a major problem.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You seem to have skipped over the bit where they offered 2 grand less than the going starting salary for managers.

Well the fact that they went so quickly
Who said anything about "quickly?" This took nearly a month. I had been unemployed for nearly a year and was desperate; otherwise I'd have asked for more.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
from offering to grand less

Remember when you suggested reading comprehension to someone up above? They offered me TWO grand less.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
to agreeing to 2 grand more suggests they are willing to be flexible about such things in an effort to maximise revenue.

It's a not-for-profit agency.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It doesn't by itself indicate sexism.

Nothing by itself indicates sexism, according to you. How about the pattern mentioned above of being flooded with female applicants for managerial positions, yet hiring only 1 such in a period of roughly 14 years (for a total of 5 openings).

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If they had been that sexist they wouldn't have thought you were worth paying the extra 2 grand.

[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The fact is that women generally accept what employers offer, while men sometimes ask for more. On being told I could have the job at my asking price, I was informed that a major part of the decision was based on my having the, um, temerity (a different, gender-based word was used in the actual discussion) to negotiate for a higher salary, as negotiation among opposed & competing interests is actually part of the manager's job.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Indeed. A willingness to negotiate pay is indeed an important part of many employers evaluation of their employees worth. It gives an indication of their employees self evaluation of their worth and also helps employers reduce staff turnover costs. Your employers clearly thought it was important. As you have pointed out a major part of the pay gap is due not to sexism but to a greater willingness of men to negotiate pay..

1. Nowhere in this discussion did I suggest that "a major part of the pay gap is due not to sexism but to a greater willingness of men to negotiate pay." Kindly separate your interpretative conclusions from my evidence.

2. Further, are you suggesting that a difference in hirees' behavior is NOT due to sexism? Or does sexism, for you, exist only in the universe of employment?

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well I've no idea about your employer's staffing policy. Its possible that your bosses are losing money by not correctly assessing who are the best job applicants. However given the small size of the pay gap when other major factors are taken into account, given the complete absence of a pay gap for the under 35s, given the general lack of evidence for widespread sexual discrimination in job hiring it does seem like employers losing money in this way is a major problem.

[Ultra confused]

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:


quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The fact is that women generally accept what employers offer, while men sometimes ask for more. On being told I could have the job at my asking price, I was informed that a major part of the decision was based on my having the, um, temerity (a different, gender-based word was used in the actual discussion) to negotiate for a higher salary, as negotiation among opposed & competing interests is actually part of the manager's job.

Indeed. A willingness to negotiate pay is indeed an important part of many employers evaluation of their employees worth. It gives an indication of their employees self evaluation of their worth and also helps employers reduce staff turnover costs. Your employers clearly thought it was important. As you have pointed out a major part of the pay gap is due not to sexism but to a greater willingness of men to negotiate pay.

I would agree that willingness to negotiate pay is one probably significant and under-recognized factor in the pay differential, but would disagree with the assumption that that means it's not sexist. I would argue it is. To some degree it is the fault of the wider society, which trains women to be accommodators and encouragers and trains men to be assertive and self-promoting-- and judges women harshly when they demonstrate those same qualities. But it is also the fault of the employer, for failing to recognize and compensate fairly those skills, even in jobs where accommodation/encouragement are more suited to the particular job demands that assertiveness and self-promotion.

It really goes to cultural norms and diversity training. In addition to the male/female divide on this issue there are several cultural divides as well-- many cultures discourage the sort of assertive self-promotion that we encourage among men, which leads to pay gaps with different immigrant groups as well. Employers who value a diverse team (which they pretty much all say they do) would do well to put those empty words into action by developing means of assigning compensation that appreciate these sorts of cultural differences, rather than expecting all employees to demand "their rights."

It should be noted that many employers also employ a great deal of subterfuge to keep employees from knowing what others are making and why, making it that much harder to advocate for equal pay. Simply utilizing greater transparency in that area would go a long way to evening the playing field, as it did for Porridge.

[ 07. July 2015, 21:25: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If we're doing anecdata, I had a scorching great interview, to the point that they were showing me my desk for Monday--which fell apart when they asked me my salary ideas, and I named a sum about what I was making at my last job. Silence, and no call later. I called to ask what was happening and was haughtily informed that my values did not suit the values of "X" company. I said that I had named the amount because it was about what I was making now, plus I saw it as the first move in a negotiating strategy and expected a lower counter offer, not "go to hell." Nothing doing. And knowing the people, I am certain my gender had a shitload to do with it. (I had worked for them before for years, which was why they were trying to recruit me now.)

[ 08. July 2015, 02:04: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yep. If you'd been a guy, you'd have been ballsy and confident and they'd be slapping you on the back. But in a "girl" (word choice intentional) it's materialistic and prideful and self-interested.

But then they'll come back and say it's your fault you don't get paid as much as the guys.

[brick wall]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Exhibit A: US women's soccer wins world cup, makes $2 million; men's team loses and makes $9 million.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exhibit A: US women's soccer wins world cup, makes $2 million; men's team loses and makes $9 million.

Women's soccer is less popular. Is that due to latent sexism? Maybe.

How much does the US men's field hockey team make? Probably not much, because nobody watches them.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exhibit A: US women's soccer wins world cup, makes $2 million; men's team loses and makes $9 million.

Women's soccer is less popular. Is that due to latent sexism? Maybe.

How much does the US men's field hockey team make? Probably not much, because nobody watches them.

Much as I love to stand against sexism and patriarchy, L.C. nails this one.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exhibit A: US women's soccer wins world cup, makes $2 million; men's team loses and makes $9 million.

Women's soccer is less popular. Is that due to latent sexism? Maybe.

How much does the US men's field hockey team make? Probably not much, because nobody watches them.

Much as I love to stand against sexism and patriarchy, L.C. nails this one.
I agree that popularity/ commercial interests are the cause of the discrepancy, but would argue that is, indeed, an indication of sexism-- especially when you're talking the same exact game, just played by a different gender. Just as we point to racism as the underlying cause when TV shows (and to a lesser degree, films) featuring African-American actors make less box office (causing the actors to receive less $$) than those featuring white actors.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As long as we acknowledge that the sexism is endemic to the world's cultures, and not merely a problem of FIFA.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um, if anybody suggested that, it would be LC.
FIFA is merely a shining example of sexism. Did you see the awards ceremony? Kinda surprised they did not make the players were those little black dresses.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
especially when you're talking the same exact game, just played by a different gender.

I'm sure sexism in society has something to do with it, but I think there's also a difference between someone being the best athlete, and someone being the best for a woman. (This as an inherent sexual bias because men are bigger, stronger and faster, but that doesn't make it sexist.)

Usain Bolt is the fastest human on the planet. That's pretty special. The fastest woman is still the late Florence Griffith Joyner. Her records have stood unchallenged for a generation - she was clearly a superb athlete, but Bolt could run circles around Flo-Jo, and thousands of men can beat her times.

I don't know much about soccer - I have no idea how the women's game compares to the men's game. If you were to look for a fair male opponent for the victorious USA women's team, at what level of the men's game would you find it?

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But see, that logic doesn't hold up.
For one, boxing. Boxing has weight divisions to equalise matches. the fact that the biggest fight in recent years was not anywhere near the heavy-weight division puts paid to that rubbish.
Team sports are played by people in the same physical classes. Competition is level, compensation is not.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Team sports are played by people in the same physical classes. Competition is level, compensation is not.

Sure - but just because the competition is fair, it doesn't mean that there's necessarily as much intrinsic interest.

You can get a perfectly respectable, level competition in under 15s Rugby, but it won't draw big crowds. It's just not that interesting.

You could get a respectable, level competition in "soccer for the fat and unfit", but nobody would want to watch it.

Pro sport is business. NBA players get paid more than 10 times what MLS players make. Why? Because there's more money in basketball right now. Players in England's Premier League or Germany's Bundesliga make much closer to the typical wage of an NBA or MLB player, because there's more money in European soccer than in the US.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right. And no one watches collegiate sports, do they? Not at all popular because the average level of play isn't pro-level.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As long as we acknowledge that the sexism is endemic to the world's cultures, and not merely a problem of FIFA.

Absolutely. Although I don't think we can say the FIFA is totally off the hook either. They have a choice in how they choose to divide up the profits that make off games. They choose what share goes to the winning team and which goes to the others; and they similarly have a choice re how much to men's vs. women's soccer. The fact that they make more advertising $$ off men's soccer vs. women's is on society as a whole. The fact that they choose to divide the profits along those same lines, though, is entirely their own decision.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools