• Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries
    123 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49856696]A single study found in favor of the "no wage-discrimination exists in the tech field" mantra does not "close the case." There are numerous studies that diametrically oppose this one and more work needs to be done in ensuring the gender inequality is rectified.[/QUOTE] It depends what you include in the Tech field, working in one if you include PM's and Sales Reps then the field is about even.
[QUOTE=Jund;49859280]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[/QUOTE] I'm still failing to see how this ties into discrimination in industry dude. We've been over this and agreed, society has certain biases between men and women, and reversing those biases is going to take [I]time[/I], not half-assed "let's just hire a bunch of women / pay for their schooling" compensation measures. All you're doing is giving women who do find themselves interested in STEM an unfair advantage over their male peers. Even if we assume there are hundreds of thousands of women who are being raised to avoid STEM like the plague by their sexist parents who time-traveled here from the 1800's, preferential hiring and scholarships aren't going to be of any use to them because [I]they aren't interested in the first place.[/I] You have a valid complaint about society, but in the context of discrimination in industry, it's almost entirely irrelevant.
i think the bigger problem is holding STEM jobs up as the only jobs that matter if you want to live a decent life.
[QUOTE=srobins;49859386]I'm still failing to see how this ties into discrimination in industry dude. We've been over this and agreed, society has certain biases between men and women, and reversing those biases is going to take [I]time[/I], not half-assed "let's just hire a bunch of women / pay for their schooling" compensation measures. All you're doing is giving women who do find themselves interested in STEM an unfair advantage over their male peers. Even if we assume there are hundreds of thousands of women who are being raised to avoid STEM like the plague by their sexist parents who time-traveled here from the 1800's, preferential hiring and scholarships aren't going to be of any use to them because [I]they aren't interested in the first place.[/I] You have a valid complaint about society, but in the context of discrimination in industry, it's almost entirely irrelevant.[/QUOTE] of course they'll be incentivised by job security and money, that's what most people in STEM fields are incentivsed by [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] i don't know why you're even bringing up discrimination in the industry when all i've been talking about are societal issues with children
[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] how could we not do this? as long as people are born with either a sausage or a clam between their legs (and also a fuckload of different hormones which cause our brains to operate in different ways) we'll have cultural influences in how each one acts. i can't think of any culture that doesn't have these influences. yes, even the ones where there are more than one gender, those too have cultural ideas of how men generally operate and how women generally operate. that doesn't mean people won't fall out of these patterns, they can and it is okay, but there will always be an idea of things that are generally masculine and things that are generally feminine.
[QUOTE=Jund;49859489]of course they'll be incentivised by job security and money, that's what most people in STEM fields are incentivsed by [editline]3rd March 2016[/editline] i don't know why you're even bringing up discrimination in the industry when all i've been talking about are societal issues with children[/QUOTE] Because the entire context of this thread is whether or not women are discriminated against when receiving pay?
[QUOTE=srobins;49859611]Because the entire context of this thread is whether or not women are discriminated against when receiving pay?[/QUOTE] yeah but i never talked about current discrimination in the industry? i'm saying that there aren't many in the field right now and giving a reason why
Yeah because its a myth
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49857078]Men just make smarter choices, clearly.[/QUOTE] Not smarter, more aggressive. Men are more likely to ask for raises, for instance. There are many factors that aren't workplace discrimination at play.
I had so many female professors in school(biology,chemistry,maths...) and in college, that these talks about girls being discouraged to go study in certain fields sounds so alien to me. My computer science professor in middle and high school were both women, and the one from highschool inspired me to study computer science myself. At the end only two of us guys went to study in technical fields, but other girls did go to study maths, pharmacy, medicine, etc... programming simply wasn't attractive to anyone else, even though third of us took computer science classes.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49859556]how could we not do this? as long as people are born with either a sausage or a clam between their legs (and also a fuckload of different hormones which cause our brains to operate in different ways) we'll have cultural influences in how each one acts. i can't think of any culture that doesn't have these influences. yes, even the ones where there are more than one gender, those too have cultural ideas of how men generally operate and how women generally operate. that doesn't mean people won't fall out of these patterns, they can and it is okay, but there will always be an idea of things that are generally masculine and things that are generally feminine.[/QUOTE] the problem is not the basic concept of men and women being affected differently by culture, but how far we've taken it. there are things that won't be phased out and shouldn't have to be, but i don't think society would be in any danger if dresses stopped being a girly thing
About percentage disparity, there is this article, which has a few ideas, but nothing conclusive. This is more about private sector, previous articles seem to suggest academia doesn't have the same lopsided ratios.It's also a few years back, but had a decent graph. [url]http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Fpwr8hd.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=phygon;49859769]Not smarter, more aggressive. Men are more likely to ask for raises, for instance. There are many factors that aren't workplace discrimination at play.[/QUOTE] In negotiating successful use of aggression IS smarter.
I can't find something to cite but note that in men, aggressive/assertive is seen as "good! strong leader material. confident person." In women? "Ugh, what a ball-busting bitch."
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49859810]the problem is not the basic concept of men and women being affected differently by culture, but how far we've taken it. there are things that won't be phased out and shouldn't have to be, but i don't think society would be in any danger if dresses stopped being a girly thing[/QUOTE] i agree with the point on dresses, although i believe masculine dresses and feminine dresses would be different in both form and function. the gaps between men and women are closing with every generation, we're not as dichotomistic when it comes to gender constructs and roles and such as we were even 10 years ago. i know there are people who think all of the behavioral differences between the sexes are all cultural, which i disagree with. those people believe the concept of gender is only cultural and want to change the culture to not have gendered things, which i disagree with as well. i think we should acknowledge and celebrate the differences while also not discouraging people who fall out of the norm. if a guy wants to be girly or a lady wants to be manly, let them have at it, same if that boy wants to be a manly man and that girl wants to be a womanly woman. not at all saying you're one of those people who want to get rid of gender (i don't think you are) with this, just using your post as a launchpad for my opinion on this matter.
[QUOTE=emly;49859867]About percentage disparity, there is this article, which has a few ideas, but nothing conclusive. This is more about private sector, previous articles seem to suggest academia doesn't have the same lopsided ratios.It's also a few years back, but had a decent graph. [URL]http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Fpwr8hd.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Graphs like this are so difficult to make conclusions off of on their own. Just a couple question I would want to ask are: 1) Did the number of men explode, therefore making women a smaller percentage or did women stop entering the field? I assume the field, itself, is massive compared to what it was in 1985. 2) Do women work in certain fields within the major? "Computer science" is a totally different thing today comped to what it was in 1970-1980.
The beautiful thing about the United States and other western democracies is that they afford women the freedom of choice. Women in the United States don't have to go into STEM if they don't want to because there are alternative choices available and a higher standard of living. An interesting study done by Camilla Schriener of the University of Oslo showed that as freedom of choice expands in a country so does the gender gap in various occupations. In their survey, adolescent girls from countries like Iran were more likely to respond with interest in more thing-oriented jobs like engineering than in countries like Norway. One possible explanation for this pattern is that in countries like Iran, women do not have as much economic and social leeway as they do in the west to make career choices. Liberal arts degrees or a nursing position might not provide enough money to feed your family in Iran, but a STEM degree might. Meanwhile, in the west, a lot of us tend to choose jobs based upon our interests and not always necessity. This freedom of choice allows our biological tendencies to express themselves more fully. In addition to this pattern, there are also some other widely-held misconceptions about gender and how it relates to human behavior. It has become enormously fashionable today to say that every single human behavior, good or bad, is a result of socialization, but the great body of knowledge accumulated through science says otherwise. The most we can say with any kind of accuracy is that most human behavior is some kind of mix between environmental and biological factors to varying degrees. There is good reason to suppose that interests and job preferences might stem from differences in biology and epigenetic development between men and women, especially since we can see differences in interests within infants before they have even had any time to be socialized. I urge everyone to watch this brilliant documentary by a Norwegian comedian who decided to investigate the common narratives surrounding gender in order to see if they stand up to scientific scrutiny. This documentary was so powerful that the Norwegian government decided to close its gender studies department after its release. I used to believe that women didn't become engineers due to sexism and discrimination, but this documentary really upset those convictions after I saw it. [video=youtube;p5LRdW8xw70]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/video]
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49860565][video=youtube;p5LRdW8xw70]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/video][/QUOTE] Lol, the ending is mind blowing. Those gender "scientists" in the video actually don't even want to consider biology being a factor, the whole base of their "scientific" hypothesis is IGNORING the biology itself. It would be like Newton wanting to develop his formulas by ignoring gravity. You simply don't do science like that.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49860971]Lol, the ending is mind blowing. Those gender "scientists" in the video actually don't even want to consider biology being a factor, the whole base of their "scientific" hypothesis is IGNORING the biology itself. It would be like Newton wanting to develop his formulas by ignoring gravity. You simply don't do science like that.[/QUOTE] The amount of intellectual dishonesty in the studies of race and gender is mindblowing. So many people dismiss facts simply because they contradict a conviction they hold deeply.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49856696]A single study found in favor of the "no wage-discrimination exists in the tech field" mantra does not "close the case." There are numerous studies that diametrically oppose this one and more work needs to be done in ensuring the gender inequality is rectified.[/QUOTE] You need to name those studies because the decade long governmental studies found that any gap amongst equal levels of skill and experience was a result of jobs where the employee had a hand in setting pay. This is the same study Obama deliberately had worded to be disingenuous, with the phrase "the indicated gap in pay unable to be accounted for by normal auditing and accounting means" stuck onto it, and when the people actually surveyed were asked point blank by reporters, it turned out that that they did not feel comfortable asking for more money than the employer indicated in the initial pay bargaining, and they were subsequently paid less. Here in vidya gaem land, women in AAA positions make more than men in most instances, thanks to extremely progressive and aggressive hiring policies, [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/3/yahoo-sued-for-alleged-discrimination-against-male/"]policies that are now drawing legal scrutiny.[/URL] So some info would be nice, thanks. Whilst there is still a long way to go in reaching equalital goals on many, many fronts, western capitalism concerns isn't one of them. *Your feels is not a study or kind of study
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49860995]The amount of intellectual dishonesty in the studies of race and gender is mindblowing. So many people dismiss facts simply because they contradict a conviction they hold deeply.[/QUOTE] Welcome to soft sciences.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49857078]Men just make smarter choices, clearly.[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ who said this? Does "smart" to you always mean making more money no matter what the costs? What if I told you that women are on average more satisfied with their work and career choices then men are? I guess women just make smarter choices.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49861247]Jesus Christ who said this? Does "smart" to you always mean making more money no matter what the costs? What if I told you that women are on average more satisfied with their work and career choices then men are? I guess women just make smarter choices.[/QUOTE] Oddly enough, women have become less happy compared to men over the decades, not more, as they've been given more choice. ([url]http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969[/url])
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49861247]Jesus Christ who said this? Does "smart" to you always mean making more money no matter what the costs? What if I told you that women are on average more satisfied with their work and career choices then men are? I guess women just make smarter choices.[/QUOTE] Not related to that, but interestingly enough, the big problem in the UK at the moment is getting boys to go to university to do anything degree related, as most would prefer to do apprenticeships etc rather than saddle themselves with a mountain of debt for something that is a dubious return on investment.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49861272]Oddly enough, women have become less happy compared to men over the decades, not more, as they've been given more choice. ([url]http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969[/url])[/QUOTE] The reasons for that (as well as the climbing male suicide rate) should be obvious when you look at the falling number of women who have stable families with children.
[QUOTE=27X;49861094]You need to name those studies[/QUOTE] I'd like these as well. I believe, but can't support, that there are issues relating to wage displarity, disparity in representation, disparity in assessed skills on basis of gender/race, etc. The last one at least can be anecdotally answered by trans individuals writing of changes in how their skill was perceived before and after transition, from both MtF, and FtM individuals. (Men were seen as technically more capable, women less. Some were even mistaken as their own sibling.)
[QUOTE=emly;49861320]I'd like these as well. I believe, but can't support, that there are issues relating to wage displarity, disparity in representation, disparity in assessed skills on basis of gender/race, etc. The last one at least can be anecdotally answered by trans individuals writing of changes in how their skill was perceived before and after transition, from both MtF, and FtM individuals. (Men were seen as technically more capable, women less. Some were even mistaken as their own sibling.)[/QUOTE] All useless assertions, you even admit it.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49861312]The reasons for that (as well as the climbing male suicide rate) should be obvious when you look at the falling number of women who have stable families with children.[/QUOTE] That's all part of the same picture. By taking away all gender roles we separate the idea that women need men and men need women. So, of course, we're going to get a degradation of those societal units.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49861327]All useless assertions, you even admit it.[/QUOTE] Anecdotes make for fun stories+good headlines, not so useful analyzing a problem as a whole.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49861203]Welcome to soft sciences.[/QUOTE] Yeah fuck economics, archaeology, and psychology. Who needs'em.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.