• Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries
    123 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Antlerp;49857722]What's your point?[/QUOTE] I didn't quite understand what he meant by them getting paid the same, but earning different amounts. It was clarified.
Here's an idea. If you want the "job gap" (since, it's not a pay gap) to be closed, offer both men and women equal amounts of parental leave when a child is born under their care. Parenting should be a two person job anyways and that way there are no discrepancies in dedication to your job based on who has the babymaking equipment. Right now, individual women already have the hiring advantage in stem fields, because there is a push to try to equalize the genders. The same thing happens in reverse in the nursing field. I really don't think we should be basing hiring decisions on anything other than qualifications, such nebulous applications of affirmative action will only result in more sexism.
[QUOTE=nomad1;49856779]Wasn't there a study which came to the conclusion that the gap exists because men are more times likely to ask for higher salary while women don't?[/QUOTE] If I recall correctly, men generally value themselves more and therefore ask for higher salaries, while women generally undervalue themselves and accept lower salaries unless they are doing it for someone else, like a family.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;49858211]The true cause of the wage gap is not direct discrimination, but the fact that women are raised to fear taking the initiative and to divert to others for help. Traditional misogyny has given way to parental overprotection (See: those studies where parents vast;ly underestimated the obstacles their baby could climb over if it was a girl and prevented it from trying.) and I don't think feminism has really caught up. They think the cause of "internalized misogyny" is still obvious sexism, but it's actually "innocent" stuff like this. It may seem good to go out of your way to protect your female child when you're a parent, but if you aren't really careful you can cause them lifelong anxiety surrounding taking control of their job and their life. The truth is, honest, pure-hearted protection of female children cripples them for life and robs them of the ability to take initiative. Essentially, when you overprotect your child, you are teaching them that they require that protection, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But it makes me wonder: this current wave of feminism. Isn't it all about protecting women? If what I've theorized is true, doesn't that mean fourth-wave feminism runs the risk of accidentally making internalized misogyny [I]worse [/I]by further convincing women that they [I]require[/I] protection?[/QUOTE] What if we are genetically programmed to protect females, since they are the ones that give birth to a child and keep the species going ?
My computer science class at uni consists of over 90% males, at college it was all male. These are not anomalous figures. Even if we look at the state of the tech industry from a youth's perspective, we can see that girls are being told from a young age "programming is for boys". The case is definitely not closed.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49858227]My computer science class at uni consists of over 90% males, at college it was all male. These are not anomalous figures. Even if we look at the state of the tech industry from a youth's perspective, [B]we can see that girls are being told from a young age "programming is for boys"[/B]. The case is definitely not closed.[/QUOTE] Who is saying this?
If the cause of less women in STEM fields is because of disinterest from women, is there really a problem?
[QUOTE=PelPix123;49858270]Nobody. It's done by exclusion, not directly. Women aren't steered AWAY from STEM like a lot of people say, just TOWARDS other fields. [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] Nobody ever says no to girls that become interested in STEM anymore, but few do because they aren't exposed in the first place, is what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] They aren't exposed to STEM? That's simply not true. [QUOTE=PelPix123;49858353]Well, it's because we foster different interests in men and women. Should we be doing that in the first place? It's not a matter of whether it's wrong. It's more a matter of whether it's efficient.[/QUOTE] We don't foster interest in anyone, people simply choose what they feel confortable doing.
[QUOTE=V12US;49858310]If the cause of less women in STEM fields is because of disinterest from women, is there really a problem?[/QUOTE] If we make no effort to encourage it like we do with boys, then that is a problem. Girls aren't intrinsically against science and technology, there is a reason for their higher potential for disinterest. And when that gap between boys and girls can make extreme male-majority classes a common thing, that shows a deeper problem not being addressed.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;49858399]Generally that's not true. People aren't just born interested in things. They learn what to be interested in. That's the case with everyone. It's all learned, for everyone.[/QUOTE] Where do you think boys are more exposed to STEM than girls?
It's not like we can erase what has been in our brains for tens of thousands of years. Men and women have always had different interests, it's arguably in our nature. If less boys like to play dress up a baby doll than girls do, who cares, why would you want to force a 50/50 split in every hobby, every job, and every interest?
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49858392]If we make no effort to encourage it like we do with boys, then that is a problem. Girls aren't intrinsically against science and technology, there is a reason for their higher potential for disinterest. And when that gap between boys and girls can make extreme male-majority classes a common thing, that shows a deeper problem not being addressed.[/QUOTE] Are boys really encouraged to pursue scientific careers and not girls? That doesn't seem to be the case, really. Heck, if anything initiatives and affirmative action bullshit favors women in those fields more than anything else. There's this engineering school a few km away from where I live that used to be restricted to females. Since then it's been opened to male students as well and now it's the same distribution as any other engineering school, which is basically 80% male 20% female. In Scandinavian countries, which are the places where gender norms are supposed to have the least influence, we observe the same disproportionate distribution in gender. If you still believe girls aren't encouraged to do sciences enough I don't know what you need.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49857146]If there's no pay gap in stem jobs, how can the pay gap in stem jobs be affecting the pay gap in other areas of employment? That'd be like saying that a prospective jar of jelly beans is empty but that by pouring that empty jar into a pile of jelly beans I'd be adding to the pile.[/quote] Someone else explained my post in wording that you would probably understand better. [quote=Zyler;49857146]They get paid the same (The Equal Pay Act makes it so that it is illegal to pay one person who does the same amount of work more than somebody else), there are more men than woman in STEM and the statistic is just a measurement of the average gross income of ALL men and ALL women, not a comparison of individual men and women. It also doesn't account for factors such as employment position, time worked at the company and overtime.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=_Axel;49857189]Why is it an issue though? I never understood this mentality of wanting to make sure everything from gender to race is evenly distributed across the field. What if women simply don't want to work tech jobs? Are we going to brainwash them into following these types of career, simply because they pay more? That's quite patronizing. Personally, I think the right choice is the one people themselves make, not what pseudofeminists who see discrepancies in gender distribution in tech as an injustice when it's evidently a result of free choice push for. Besides, who are we to assume working in tech is the most beneficial position? It's rather oversimplifying to just look at the wages and say "this one pays better, thus it's better." These jobs come with many disadvantages too, you may have to work unforgiving and numerous hours, at the expense of family life, and experience high amounts of stress which can wreck your health. At the end of the day, jobs that are preferred by women may very well be much more enjoyable all things considered.[/QUOTE] Assuming that women just naturally aren't interested in tech and engineering jobs, it wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't natural. It's influenced by cultural stereotypes and less-than-hospitable work environments. Tech isn't seen as a feminine job, with the stereotype of it being taken up by fat sweaty white guys, which influences women who are on the fence between tech and some other job. Additionally, even if a work environment would be perfectly hospitable for women, widespread reports of the few cases where it does happen makes it seem more prevalent, magnified by people thinking "well there's already very few women in STEM, this must be a big reason why". Pelpix also explained this a bit, but I already wrote this so [QUOTE=Hogie bear;49858250]Who is saying this?[/QUOTE] well there was that one infamous "barbie the programmer" thing [QUOTE=_Axel;49858588]Are boys really encouraged to pursue scientific careers and not girls? That doesn't seem to be the case, really. Heck, if anything initiatives and affirmative action bullshit favors women in those fields more than anything else. There's this engineering school a few km away from where I live that used to be restricted to females. Since then it's been opened to male students as well and now it's the same distribution as any other engineering school, which is basically 80% male 20% female. In Scandinavian countries, which are the places where gender norms are supposed to have the least influence, we observe the same disproportionate distribution in gender. If you still believe girls aren't encouraged to do sciences enough I don't know what you need.[/QUOTE] Government encouragement =/= cultural encouragement [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Segab;49858455]It's not like we can erase what has been in our brains for tens of thousands of years. Men and women have always had different interests, it's arguably in our nature. If less boys like to play dress up a baby doll than girls do, who cares, why would you want to force a 50/50 split in every hobby, every job, and every interest?[/QUOTE] But electronics haven't been in our brains for more than two centuries, and computers haven't been in our brains for even one century.
This reminds me of some case where some no name actress cried sexism because her male costar (Chris Hemsworth) was paid more, the studio actually paid the difference and it was paraded around as defeating sexism. Story made my blood boil, not only is that her agent's fault she's not getting paid more since actor pay is negotiated (look at how much iron man makes compared to other avenger actors) but why should some random actress be paid as much for an appearance as friggin Thor? Ludicrous. She took advantage of false conception of misogyny and tried to make the studio look bad publicly to squeeze out a better deal after the fact. It's also disturbing that some like minded people are pushing for law enforced affirmative action i.e. there must be x amount of women and minorities hired.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49858390]We don't foster interest in anyone, people simply choose what they feel confortable doing.[/QUOTE] I feel like pushing for more female interest in STEM has only been a recent phenomenon (post 2000) Parents who are in their 50s-60s are less likely to have supported their kids' going into fields atypical of their gender than new parents these days
for people not getting the difference between wage and earnings: [video=youtube;wjWBXbGVyQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU[/video]
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49858227]My computer science class at uni consists of over 90% males, at college it was all male. These are not anomalous figures. Even if we look at the state of the tech industry from a youth's perspective, we can see that girls are being told from a young age "programming is for boys". The case is definitely not closed.[/QUOTE] When and where exactly are we telling women that STEM is for men? Universities give out grants and scholarships just to convince women to give STEM a try, major corporations like Intel hire women preferentially and the general mood of the STEM industries is extremely encouraging towards women. This idea that women are poor helpless babies who can't make up their own minds about what they want to do and this need extreme positive reinforcement to achieve statistical equality is ridiculous and sexist, which is ironic because that's exactly what your side of the aisle on this debate are against. No woman that is passionate about STEM is being prevented from entering her field of choice, in fact, she has an immediate advantage in the form of financial assistance and preferential hiring. [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] With regards to the argument that it's a function of what interests we expose women to, I would have agreed 20 years ago but not today. Women in modern American society are encouraged to break the past mold of stay at home mother or waitress and become highly competitive professionals in many male dominated fields. Obviously our culture has a deeply ingrained image of women that differs from that of men, but that's a topic that reaches way, way beyond the job gap.
[QUOTE=srobins;49859045]When and where exactly are we telling women that STEM is for men? Universities give out grants and scholarships just to convince women to give STEM a try, major corporations like Intel hire women preferentially and the general mood of the STEM industries is extremely encouraging towards women. This idea that women are poor helpless babies who can't make up their own minds about what they want to do and this need extreme positive reinforcement to achieve statistical equality is ridiculous and sexist, which is ironic because that's exactly what your side of the aisle on this debate are against. No woman that is passionate about STEM is being prevented from entering her field of choice, in fact, she has an immediate advantage in the form of financial assistance and preferential hiring.[/QUOTE] During my elementary/middle school years there really wasn't that kind of support, and there was still quite a bit of gender pressure from peers And those are the years when kids are the most impressionable
[QUOTE=srobins;49859045]When and where exactly are we telling women that STEM is for men? Universities give out grants and scholarships just to convince women to give STEM a try, major corporations like Intel hire women preferentially and the general mood of the STEM industries is extremely encouraging towards women. This idea that women are poor helpless babies who can't make up their own minds about what they want to do and this need extreme positive reinforcement to achieve statistical equality is ridiculous and sexist, which is ironic because that's exactly what your side of the aisle on this debate are against. No woman that is passionate about STEM is being prevented from entering her field of choice, in fact, she has an immediate advantage in the form of financial assistance and preferential hiring. [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] With regards to the argument that it's a function of what interests we expose women to, I would have agreed 20 years ago but not today. Women in modern American society are encouraged to break the past mold of stay at home mother or waitress and become highly competitive professionals in many male dominated fields. Obviously our culture has a deeply ingrained image of women that differs from that of men, but that's a topic that reaches way, way beyond the job gap.[/QUOTE] Do you really think that societal norms can change completely in just 10 years? It took the US over a hundred years from the end of slavery to give black people equal rights and treatment. Yes, women are now being encouraged to enter fields traditionally relegated to men, but the statistics say that society obviously hasn't responded to it yet.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49859146]Do you really think that societal norms can change completely in just 10 years? It took the US over a hundred years from the end of slavery to give black people equal rights and treatment. Yes, women are now being encouraged to enter fields traditionally relegated to men, but the statistics say that society obviously hasn't responded to it yet.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that, in fact I said quite the opposite towards the end of my post. You're talking about cultural ideas that have existed for thousands of years. In the scale of human civilization as a whole, the recent movement to reverse these ideals and bring about cultural equality is like a pinpoint, it's nothing. Obviously it's going to take a long time before society fully adapts to our attempts at steering it in a new direction, but the point is that there isn't much more to do other than continue to be encouraging and removing obstacles from women's lives.
I feel like the "women who are passionate about STEM will go" argument is kinda bs because going STEM isn't something you simply wake up and decide to do one day when you're 30 Like there are a ton of guys who are in STEM because of money, or just because, but they started when they were 15 It takes [B]years[/B] of learning for most people to even enter the doorway of STEM
[QUOTE=Jund;49859166]I feel like the "women who are passionate about STEM will go" argument is kinda bs because going STEM fields isn't something you simply wake up and decide to do one day when you're 30 Like there are a ton of guys who are in STEM because of money, or just because, but they started when they were 15 It takes [B]years[/B] of learning for most people to even enter the doorway of STEM[/QUOTE] That's entirely false. 90% of the people in my CS program started the program knowing fuck all about computers. Anyone can enter the field so long as they are engaged in their studues, and even if that weren't true, it's irrelevant. Anyone who wants to enter STEM can enter, whether they start at 15 or 30, male or female.
[QUOTE=srobins;49859181]That's entirely false. 90% of the people in my CS program started the program knowing fuck all about computers. Anyone can enter the field so long as they are engaged in their studues, and even if that weren't true, it's irrelevant. Anyone who wants to enter STEM can enter, whether they start at 15 or 30, male or female.[/QUOTE] as if a college education doesn't take years of learning? as if it doesn't cost money? even then you only know the basics of your field, nothing enough to get you a high paying job. you can enter sure, but it doesn't mean anything if you can't put food on your table it's not that females have an abnormally high washout rate from STEM; they aren't applying in the first place
[QUOTE=Segab;49858455]It's not like we can erase what has been in our brains for tens of thousands of years. Men and women have always had different interests, it's arguably in our nature. If less boys like to play dress up a baby doll than girls do, who cares, why would you want to force a 50/50 split in every hobby, every job, and every interest?[/QUOTE] but [I]how much[/I] of that is really in our nature? are boys innately drawn to monster trucks? are girls born with a liking for the color pink?
again this is for the STEM field now, not in the future it's a rebuke for people who think that pushing for more support for women is stupid because the wage gap doesn't exist, etc. automerge breaker zuk is suck
[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;49859015]for people not getting the difference between wage and earnings: [video=youtube;wjWBXbGVyQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU[/video][/QUOTE] [highlight]THANK YOU.[/highlight] Finally someone who gets it. The rest of the thread has been people flinging "facts" at each other, over nothing...
[QUOTE=Jund;49859219]as if a college education doesn't take years of learning? as if it doesn't cost money? even then you only know the basics of your field, nothing enough to get you a high paying job. you can enter sure, but it doesn't mean anything if you can't put food on your table it's not that females have an abnormally high washout rate from STEM; they aren't applying in the first place[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with anything? Explain your point? Obviously it takes time and money, as does literally anything you want to become skilled and educated at. Where does this basic concept of education tie in to the idea that women are discriminated against?
That's where the "case closed" quip comes from, it's tongue-in-cheek. [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] Damnit, my merge!
[QUOTE=PelPix123;49858353]Well, it's because we foster different interests in men and women. Should we be doing that in the first place? It's not a matter of whether it's wrong. It's more a matter of whether it's efficient.[/QUOTE] Why the social engineering? We should just encourage people to do what they want regardless of society (aside from the economics)
[QUOTE=srobins;49859240]What does that have to do with anything? Explain your point? Obviously it takes time and money, as does literally anything you want to become skilled and educated at. Where does this basic concept of education tie in to the idea that women are discriminated against?[/QUOTE] because with early gender role pressure from parents and peers it would disincentivise people from committing a significant portion of their life to a field they may not even stick with halfway down the line
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.