|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The trouble with girls
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
There’s another aspect to this, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been more commented on. It completely ignores the fact that homosexuality is a thing. Were single-sex labs to be created, how does he know one of the men wouldn’t fall in love with him?
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well if that was the situation then why wouldn't the employer respond to his male employees walking by saying to himself something along the lines of "Thank goodness for that, all those money draining parasite men have ****ed off out of my business, I can replace them now with some nice cheap women and make more profit for myself"
Probably because he doesn't much like women, or he'd pay them the same as he paid his men. [/QB]
Its possible an employer chould like his male employers more than his feamale employers but wouldn't he probably like the money better than both of them?
[ 15. June 2015, 11:36: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you're confusing 'choice' with 'forced into'.
So you're saying that women don't chose to jobs that are less likely to kill them, they're forced into them?
Any more than men are more likely to chose jobs that are liable to kill them. Because, you know, we love the idea of dying horribly.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
I have no problems with jobs like mining being paid extra danger money. However that still does not explain the wide disparity between traditionally male and female jobs.
Of course that by itself wouldn't explain the disparity but various other factors discussed in the articles I linked to can explain much of the 'pay gap'. If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
However I know a number of women who work in aged care with bad backs in their twenties and thirties - although there are hoists to help with lifting they still have to physically support patients quite a bit. And aged care is one of the worst paying jobs, despite its importance. This is also an issue for nurses and even childcare workers lifting toddlers on a regular basis. Yes, it won't kill them, but can shorten their working life and earning time.
I have heard that the most common cause of on-the-job injury to women is lifting helpless people. Many nursing homes do not have hoists.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
For example men are more likely to chose to apply for jobs that can kill them.
The relevant point has nothing to do with people choosing different jobs with different salaries. The issue is with people in the same job, and more importantly progression within the same career.
Just to go back to the laboratory, as it's where this thread started and where I'm most familiar.
Two people with a PhD, post-doctoral experience in 2 laboratories totaling six years, now working in the same laboratory doing the same job for a year should earn the same salary. That would certainly be the case in UK universities. As both people gain experience they progress up the pay scale and finally reach the top of their grade, to get a further pay rise they need to successfully apply for a promotion or a different job (eg: a lectureship at another university). Eligibility for promotion or a new job will depend on several factors - research output (papers), grant income, other income etc. Assuming comparable scores on those indicators, success rates should be the same. However, if one of those two took time out to have a family that would almost certainly count against them in promotion with reasons given about some of their publications being dated (because they were written before they took time out), that they haven't shown the drive and commitment to scientific excellence (because they decided to have a family and take time looking after children) etc. There may also be questions raised about if they can be relied on - maybe they'll take sudden days off work because of child being sick, they might use their fully annual leave allowance for family holidays, they might not work beyond 7pm every night because they want to be home before the children go to bed ...
And, while it's expected that the mother rather than father takes time out that's going to create an unequality in pay.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Here's a site on that very subject.. There are stacks of them applicable to the US, UK, and just about every else Shipmates live. Part (a large part) of the pay gap is that of "jobs of equal value". Mostly, where a job is predominantly done by women it will pay worse than a job of equal value done by men.
A fair bit isn't, ie where time in a job counts towards pay, irrespective of performance.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
Here is a recent article on the situation in Australia, I'm guessing it's fairly similar in the US and UK. Australian Broadcasting Commission
Note the last paragraph where our government including our lovely male PM/Minister for Women show just how much they care about the gender pay gap.
I know it's just anecdotal, but even in teaching, which is female dominated, I often have to work hard to gain respect and be treated in the same way my male colleagues are. I'm short and in my thirties but look younger. I also have an introverted personality so am a quiet person that sometimes gets overlooked. Even people my same age and of the same level of experience treat me younger. Women have to be very strong leaders and preferably tall to gain the sort of respect men get from turning up dressed professionally and speaking confidently.
I once dated another teacher who was three years younger than me and we went to a party supply shop where I had regularly shopped. Before this I never thought gender would affect my shopping experience, however in this shop I had always found I had to ask for help and the staff weren't that excited about giving it. The man I was dating had come from work wearing a suit and I was amazed at how attentive, polite and helpful the young woman serving us was! His gender and clothing really affected how we were treated.
[ 15. June 2015, 12:07: Message edited by: Mili ]
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
For example men are more likely to chose to apply for jobs that can kill them.
The relevant point has nothing to do with people choosing different jobs with different salaries. The issue is with people in the same job, and more importantly progression within the same career.
Just to go back to the laboratory, as it's where this thread started and where I'm most familiar.
Two people with a PhD, post-doctoral experience in 2 laboratories totaling six years, now working in the same laboratory doing the same job for a year should earn the same salary. That would certainly be the case in UK universities. As both people gain experience they progress up the pay scale and finally reach the top of their grade, to get a further pay rise they need to successfully apply for a promotion or a different job (eg: a lectureship at another university). Eligibility for promotion or a new job will depend on several factors - research output (papers), grant income, other income etc. Assuming comparable scores on those indicators, success rates should be the same. However, if one of those two took time out to have a family that would almost certainly count against them in promotion with reasons given about some of their publications being dated (because they were written before they took time out), that they haven't shown the drive and commitment to scientific excellence (because they decided to have a family and take time looking after children) etc. There may also be questions raised about if they can be relied on - maybe they'll take sudden days off work because of child being sick, they might use their fully annual leave allowance for family holidays, they might not work beyond 7pm every night because they want to be home before the children go to bed ...
And, while it's expected that the mother rather than father takes time out that's going to create an unequality in pay.
Right so you think the reason that more women than men become the main caregiver in the home (and as a result get paid less for the reasons you give) isn't because they're choosing to be the one that takes that role. No you're saying the only reason they make that choice is that they're 'forced' by 'expectations'.
I'm afraid this doesn't really sound any more plausible than the idea that employers pay men more for the same jobs because they're expected to i.e. that these poor put upon employers would just love to stick that extra money into their own pockets or give it too their shareholders but they're forced by society's expectations to give it to their male employees instead.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, I'm saying that social expectations play a big part in the choices we make.
[ 15. June 2015, 12:25: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Here's a site on that very subject.. There are stacks of them applicable to the US, UK, and just about every else Shipmates live. Part (a large part) of the pay gap is that of "jobs of equal value". Mostly, where a job is predominantly done by women it will pay worse than a job of equal value done by men.
A fair bit isn't, ie where time in a job counts towards pay, irrespective of performance.
And what is 'equal value'? If it doesn't mean 'equal amount of money that the employees work generates for the employer' then its not really equal value is it. Even if it were other factors already discussed could account for a pay gap.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
A lot of it is structural. Even women without children can face discrimination if they are of child-bearing age, because businesses worry they will become pregnant and need maternity leave. This can mean they are more likely to employ or promote a man of the same age, who will get some paternity leave but not a long time if their partner/wife has a child.
So men don't hate women necessarily or even think they are worse at the job, but discrimination still has the same impact on women.
Though there still is sexism in traditionally male industries which means some employers may discriminate because they think women can't do the job as well as a man, are too hormonal or unable to work as well in earlier stages of pregnancy. There are also studies that show people like to employ people like them, and this is fairly obvious in the mostly white boys clubs at the higher ends of business.
Also, going back to Hunt's comments, I have never heard a man complain about working with women affecting their work performance due to distractions or emotions, but I personally know a number of women who have put up with sexual harassment and sexist/sexual jokes and banter in silence in order to fit in with the men at work or even to keep their job. One friend was an architect in a male dominated business and another was a waitress harassed by the restaurant owner, but not wanting to speak up for fear of losing her job. Her boss only went as far as inappropriate, personal sexual comments, which would be hard to prove and not believed to be serious by many people, but seriously affected her ability to enjoy and do her job well.
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
There’s another aspect to this, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been more commented on. It completely ignores the fact that homosexuality is a thing. Were single-sex labs to be created, how does he know one of the men wouldn’t fall in love with him?
Thank you for bringing us back to the subject at hand.
I have no idea - although I suspect the answer lies between it not having crossed Hunt's mind and it not fitting within the truth about women scientists he was determined to teach the world's science media.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you think the reason that more women than men become the main caregiver in the home (and as a result get paid less for the reasons you give) isn't because they're choosing to be the one that takes that role. No you're saying the only reason they make that choice is that they're 'forced' by 'expectations'.
I'm afraid this doesn't really sound any more plausible than the idea that employers pay men more for the same jobs because they're expected to i.e. that these poor put upon employers would just love to stick that extra money into their own pockets or give it too their shareholders but they're forced by society's expectations to give it to their male employees instead.
Why isn't that plausible? Have we not given you a multitude of ways that academia expects things of workers that can only be delivered by someone who is not tied to child-caring responsibilities? Which part of these are you not agreeing with, not understanding or disputing?
On the danger point: I am reminded that we are talking about academic jobs. In recent days I have spoken to geologists, chemists, microbiologists and a whale anatomist. Please explain how these women scientists, are doing less dangerous jobs than their male counterparts.
If they take time out to have children, why should they get paid less money to cut up a whale that a man who has not? Surely there is nothing here about danger.
[ 15. June 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Here's a site on that very subject.. There are stacks of them applicable to the US, UK, and just about every else Shipmates live. Part (a large part) of the pay gap is that of "jobs of equal value". Mostly, where a job is predominantly done by women it will pay worse than a job of equal value done by men.
A fair bit isn't, ie where time in a job counts towards pay, irrespective of performance.
And what is 'equal value'? If it doesn't mean 'equal amount of money that the employees work generates for the employer' then its not really equal value is it. Even if it were other factors already discussed could account for a pay gap.
Here's an introductory piece by Thompson's, a law firm. It mentions the difficulty in assessing "equal value" claims, hence tribunals and court cases.
As I said earlier, there's stacks of this stuff about.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you think the reason that more women than men become the main caregiver in the home (and as a result get paid less for the reasons you give) isn't because they're choosing to be the one that takes that role. No you're saying the only reason they make that choice is that they're 'forced' by 'expectations'.
I'm afraid this doesn't really sound any more plausible than the idea that employers pay men more for the same jobs because they're expected to i.e. that these poor put upon employers would just love to stick that extra money into their own pockets or give it too their shareholders but they're forced by society's expectations to give it to their male employees instead.
Why isn't that plausible? Have we not given you a multitude of ways that academia expects things of workers that can only be delivered by someone who is not tied to child-caring responsibilities? Which part of these are you not agreeing with, not understanding or disputing?
I understand all that and agree with it, that's my point. There's all kinds of reasons not to do sex discrimination why someone with child-caring responsibilities could be paid less than someone without them.
The point I'm disputing is that women are forced to be the ones with child caring responsibilities.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Here's a site on that very subject.. There are stacks of them applicable to the US, UK, and just about every else Shipmates live. Part (a large part) of the pay gap is that of "jobs of equal value". Mostly, where a job is predominantly done by women it will pay worse than a job of equal value done by men.
A fair bit isn't, ie where time in a job counts towards pay, irrespective of performance.
And what is 'equal value'? If it doesn't mean 'equal amount of money that the employees work generates for the employer' then its not really equal value is it. Even if it were other factors already discussed could account for a pay gap.
Here's an introductory piece by Thompson's, a law firm. It mentions the difficulty in assessing "equal value" claims, hence tribunals and court cases.
As I said earlier, there's stacks of this stuff about.
Right so it doesn't mean 'generates the same income for the employer'. That rather makes my point. I would say its perfectly reasonable for an employer to want to pay more in order to keep hold of an employee who is generating more money for them.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The point I'm disputing is that women are forced to be the ones with child caring responsibilities.
Women overwhelmingly are those with childcaring responsibilities. Just a fact.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so it doesn't mean 'generates the same income for the employer'. That rather makes my point. I would say its perfectly reasonable for an employer to want to pay more in order to keep hold of an employee who is generating more money for them.
Sorry, it's far more subtle than that. You'll have to look at it with a more open mind.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so it doesn't mean 'generates the same income for the employer'. That rather makes my point. I would say its perfectly reasonable for an employer to want to pay more in order to keep hold of an employee who is generating more money for them.
Sorry, it's far more subtle than that. You'll have to look at it with a more open mind.
I've already said that there is a whole range of legitimate reasons for paying one worker more tan another.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I've already said that there is a whole range of legitimate reasons for paying one worker more tan another.
Right, so you are saying that when women (and occasional men) who take time out to care for children are held back from being able to progress in their careers, this is entirely legitimate, are you? We are not just here talking about people who are not earning as much as their peers who did not have children, but people who actually end up earning less than they would have done before having children. There is a strong negative effect in some cases.
What do you think happens to the brains of people who are looking after their children?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Or it could be that most if not all of the 'pay gap' is due to differences in the choices that men and women make.
For example men are more likely to chose to apply for jobs that can kill them. In 2013 the male to female ratio of fatal occupational injuries in the was 13.6 to 1
It would be nice if it were true that the reason the managers of power companies have such high pay is because their rate of fatal occupational injuries is so much higher than that of coal miners.
The coffee in them boardrooms is lethal.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What do you think happens to the brains of people who are looking after their children?
This is not a helpful comment. After years of Thomas the Bloody Tank Engine, mine was like swiss cheese.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.
What exactly would that look like? What evidence would you not dismiss out of hand? Here's an abstract of a research paper which shows that given identical appplications, one with a woman's name and one with a man's name, "Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant."
I fully expect this to be explained away, of course, but there you have it.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is not a helpful comment. After years of Thomas the Bloody Tank Engine, mine was like swiss cheese.
After 10 years, I was better suited for employment than at the beginning. I suspect many mothers have learned many transferable skills during their child caring years and would be very good academics if they were allowed to return.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
After 10 years, yes. After five years, I was perpetually exhausted, and only had to sit down to fall asleep.
A job - any job - would have had shorter hours and better conditions.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.
Have you looked at Wikipedia yet? There's substantial evidence (admittedly contested) that part of the pay gap is due to direct sexism. The U.S. department of Labor estimated this as between 4.8% and 7.1% in 2008.
There are also the wider structural questions of women needing to interrupt careers for childcare, etc. This would be very hard to quantify - you'd have to figure out stuff like the number of women who actively wanted to be the primary caregiver vs those who were forced into it by social expectation.
You'd also need to think about women making lower paid career choices than men (e.g. studying art, literature and psychology degrees) - how much of that is preference, how much is determined by expected gender roles, and how much is due to sexism in some workplaces?
Putting exact figures down is problematic, but there's ample evidence of some sexist pay gap.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
UCL have confirmed the honorary professorship was not a job, he was not employed there and had no salary or responsibilities.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.
Have you looked at Wikipedia yet? There's substantial evidence (admittedly contested) that part of the pay gap is due to direct sexism. The U.S. department of Labor estimated this as between 4.8% and 7.1% in 2008.
There are also the wider structural questions of women needing to interrupt careers for childcare, etc. This would be very hard to quantify - you'd have to figure out stuff like the number of women who actively wanted to be the primary caregiver vs those who were forced into it by social expectation.
Which itself is circular-- when choosing who should stay home with the kids, the couple often chooses the partner with the higher salary. Which is usually the man. Which continues the cycle of social expectation/ lower pay for women.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is not a helpful comment. After years of Thomas the Bloody Tank Engine, mine was like swiss cheese.
After 10 years, I was better suited for employment than at the beginning. I suspect many mothers have learned many transferable skills during their child caring years and would be very good academics if they were allowed to return.
After years of dealing with toddlers and primary school children, dealing with stroppy 18-22 year olds is child's play.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, so you are saying that when women (and occasional men) who take time out to care for children are held back from being able to progress in their careers, this is entirely legitimate, are you?
I was the one who would take time out for a sick child, go to school events and stuff like that because my wife was a school teacher and I was the one able to come and go from my job. I was never responsible for a whole classroom of kids. Sure, it probably hurt my career. I'm cool with it. I'd rather be on my deathbed thinking of good times with my kids than thinking of a good day at work. One of my most treasured memories is getting to a school presentation a couple of minutes late and seeing my daughter wiping away a few tears because she was afraid I wouldn't be there, and then smiling at me. I'm a CPA and could probably have made a mint also practicing as a CFP, but the way it worked out for us I wouldn't trade the time with the wife and kids for money. All completely legit in my book.
quote:
What do you think happens to the brains of people who are looking after their children?
Good and bad things. It sometimes just plain wore me out. It was a good tired.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
After years of dealing with toddlers and primary school children, dealing with stroppy 18-22 year olds is child's play.
They can all find the separate corners in which they're supposed to be standing, for a start...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I was the one who would take time out for a sick child, go to school events and stuff like that because my wife was a school teacher and I was the one able to come and go from my job. I was never responsible for a whole classroom of kids. Sure, it probably hurt my career. I'm cool with it. I'd rather be on my deathbed thinking of good times with my kids than thinking of a good day at work. One of my most treasured memories is getting to a school presentation a couple of minutes late and seeing my daughter wiping away a few tears because she was afraid I wouldn't be there, and then smiling at me. I'm a CPA and could probably have made a mint also practicing as a CFP, but the way it worked out for us I wouldn't trade the time with the wife and kids for money. All completely legit in my book.
I resemble this remark. At some point the kids grow up and don't need you in the same way any more, and then you find that you've actually become unemployable.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I am fortunate that my current position is mostly free of overt sexism. Because of the way my father treated me (I think), or for some other reason, when I was growing up a generally didn't notice much sexism. not that it wasn't there, I just tended to not think too much about it and/or assume that the issue was me, rather than my gender. And then this happened: a professor on my doctoral committee said, in so many words, that he thought that my focus was not %100 on my studies, and that my studies were not my top priority, with a definite implication that this was because I was a mother. and it's true, my top priority was my child(ren). I don't think this made me any less capable as a scientist, nor could he specifically point to any way that it did (fortunately my other committee members didn't agree with him). This was the first time that I really was hit directly with an obvious case of sexism, and it somewhat floored me. I realized that in fact my committee was made up entirely of men (I chose them, but somehow their gender wasn't something I thought of.. until this happened). The primary reason they were all men was because there quite simply were no women to choose from in my department. After that incident I started to look around me, and look over my past, and suddenly many situations which I didn't think too much about popped out at me as examples of sexism. blatant examples, mostly.. but I had been just dealing with them, as either being about me personally, OR as idiots being idiots, rather than as something institutional. I remember when I was an undergrad and contemplating a career change to architecture, my godmother (who was head of surgery in a major hospital, but had to fight for that position tooth and nail) tole me "oh, architecture is a very tough choice for a woman. good for you!" (or something to that effect). I had not prior to that thought of the career as having any gender associated with it. it was just something I enjoyed (I did not ultimately go that route, but for different reasons). then I realized that I was the only girl in my high school architectural drawing class. I was also the only girl in my computer science class (this was the early 1980s.) I was aware that I was the only girl, but just didn't think about it.
The professor who thought that I was not sufficiently dedicated to my studies (despite doing well in them) was a man I actually liked. and I really don't think he was saying this BECAUSE I was a woman, per se, but because the "family comes first" attitude was just one expected from a woman with a family. I managed to work full time (non university job) and do my research, and do it well. He was not my adviser nor was my research under his direct oversight, so he really didn't have any basis for complaint about my work. my adviser was, fortunately, a man who seemed not to notice which gender someone was, or what else one was doing in their life, as long as the work we did on his grant was top notch. The other men on my committee fell somewhere in-between these two extremes.
A lot of sexism is subconscious. it's not that the person thinks' "oh, all women do X" (although obviously some do think this way). I think many men, and women as well, simply have certain preconceptions that are tied to gender, and those expectations are acted upon as reality. men and women are judged differently for certain things, and the person doing the judging may genuinely not realize that this is what they are doing.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
A lot of sexism is subconscious. it's not that the person thinks' "oh, all women do X" (although obviously some do think this way). I think many men, and women as well, simply have certain preconceptions that are tied to gender, and those expectations are acted upon as reality. men and women are judged differently for certain things, and the person doing the judging may genuinely not realize that this is what they are doing.
Yes. Very similar to the way racism/ white privilege works out. Which is what makes it insidious. No one thinks of themselves as sexist/racist-- it's the underlying, subconscious assumptions that will get you every time.
--------------------
"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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I see that Mrs Obama is in London today, as part of her charity work for girls' education. I thought, wow, she needs to consult Bibiophile, and he could tell her, that girls' education isn't poor because of sexism, but because their parents make rational decisions, or they're not very good at stuff like science, or some other reason.
Go home, Michelle, not needed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I resemble this remark. At some point the kids grow up and don't need you in the same way any more, and then you find that you've actually become unemployable.
I don't think I've become that decrepit. But then, my wife and I don't need as much income since we downsized to a condo, don't have kids to feed or clothe anymore, and that kind of thing. Now that is just the two of us we sometimes even feel like a couple of swells.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If there is data that any of the pay gap is due to sexism I would be interested to see it.
What exactly would that look like? What evidence would you not dismiss out of hand? Here's an abstract of a research paper which shows that given identical appplications, one with a woman's name and one with a man's name, "Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant."
I fully expect this to be explained away, of course, but there you have it.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
No I won't explain it away. Its just one paper but it does look like evidence of sexism in academia.
Now I could go back to the point that the level of sexism in our society has been greatly exaggerated but I think that part of this dialogue of the deaf that we've been having is my fault for not raising a rather obvious point which is that being sexist and being a sincere feminist are not mutually exclusive.
The study you raise makes exactly this point. It shows a potential wage gap due to sexism (rather than due to the different choices that men and women make) that is rather greater than the not more than seven percent indicated in other evidence for the entire economy. However it shows it in Universities, that places in our society where feminist culture is most dominant. A very clear example that being sexist does not preclude being feminist.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Oh, but that's not sexism, that's commercialism, because the Times wants to sell more papers.
Because of course it's men who buy those. The women are too busy crying.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
That video is . . .
Did an actual group of human beings, a couple of whom have presumably met one or two actual human females on at least one occasion, actually approve this thing for release??!!
This is what the producers imagine will attract more women to take up scientific studies / occupations??!!
Off to have a good cry, me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I couldn't see the video from either of two sites, but I did find the comments deeply worrying where they came from men with triumphant ignorance who simply could not comprehend that they were basing their arguments on false premises which they presented as fact.
Mind you, I will agree that the brain structure of the one who claimed that male and female brains are proved to be "very, very different" is very, very different from mine. But not in any way which makes him better at science than I am.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The video was a mashup of an old ZZ Top video and a makeup advert. Slick video with a n00b director and a clueless screenwriter. Cute girls tangentially associated with lab equipment. Just bizarre.
I think they were trying to counter the view that only frumpy women do science. Imagine! You can be every bit a girl and do science. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
ETA: To be fair, Brian Cox has got the press he has because of his looks and having been in a band.
Not saying this exhibits balance, it doesn't.
[ 18. June 2015, 17:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
That video is . . .
Did an actual group of human beings, a couple of whom have presumably met one or two actual human females on at least one occasion, actually approve this thing for release??!!
This is what the producers imagine will attract more women to take up scientific studies / occupations??!!
Off to have a good cry, me.
My 14 year old son, and future scientist, was gobsmacked when I showed it him. So maybe there is hope for the future.
On the other hand, my scientist husband's female colleague just rolled her eyes and didn't seem surprised.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've seen a number of GOP politicians publicly speaking out both against feminism and against feminist goals.
Perhaps you could name them and say what they said.
Let's start with the 174 representatives and 36 senators that voted against the Lily Ledbetter act. And all that legislation did was extend the time available for women to file a complaint.
Then let's move on to the ongoing battle over contraceptive coverage under the ACA, which is a clear example of sex discrimination. And the congressional hearings without a single female witness.
With the Lily Ledbetter Act the vote was passed, those who voted those who voted against were in the minority. I also doubt that any who voted against the act stated that they were opposing it because they did not think that sexual equality was a desirable social goal. How could that the case if the view that sexual equality is a desirable social goal (i.e. feminism) was not dominant in our culture.
Alternately if you wish to give an example
of feminism's lack of dominance perhaps you could give an example of a piece of legislation that was supported by Feminists and opposed by their opponents that was successfully repealed by opponents of feminism.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Alternately if you wish to give an example
of feminism's lack of dominance perhaps you could give an example of a piece of legislation that was supported by Feminists and opposed by their opponents that was successfully repealed by opponents of feminism.
Requirement of Obamacare that insurance plans pay for contraception. Although this was repealed not by opponents of feminism in the legislature but by opponents of feminism in our horrifically corrupt Supreme Court.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
