Do women really get paid less than men do?

[aba1]

I know going through college that women definitely tend to gravitate towards the same 5 or 6 fields. At my school roughly half the students are girls but almost all of the women are in the following: Early Childhood education, Sociology/Psychology, Dentistry, Teaching or Fashion. I never used to believe it but when I got to college I was amazed how much girls tended to flock towards the same handful of courses while guys were much more spread out. Don't get me wrong there are women in every course just 75% of them are in the same handful. I also know that almost all those fields are either hard to get a job in or pay very average wages. I have also noticed that the sciences tend to be more evenly split which rarely gets mentioned.

 

[aba1]

As the video mentions, women are often driven away from the career paths that would lead to higher salaries and it's worth asking why that happens. I think a lot of it is cultural and that culture is reaffirmed by the toy and entertainment industries. Go into any toy store and you'll see this:

It's known as the pink aisle. Most of the toys in it relate to two goals: getting a husband (by looking nice) and keeping a husband (by being a passive housewife). Young girls and the people buying for them are marketed towards products within the pink aisle. There are very few toys in this aisle that impart ideas about personal agency. Meanwhile, the boy's aisle (which has no dominant color) are all about changing the world through personal strength, intelligence, cunning, and charisma.

The entertainment industry is just as lopsided. this article compares Chris Pine's mediocre career versus Jennifer Lawrence [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/study-screen-gender-inequality-persists-264947]). Movies and TV shows reinforce the idea of men being more important than women by presenting significantly more men on screen, in more important roles, with more personal agency, and more variety in their appearance. Women are generally cast as love interests to be used as props for titillation and as a trophy for the hero to earn as a reward at the end.

(While I don't think much study has been done in this field, anime fandom is overwhelmingly female and much of that comes from a total death of entertainment for teenage women. There is a much better ratio of male and female characters in active, important roles. Think about it: Japan, a very oppressive culture, has better gender representation in their entertainment than America.)

The problem here is that there isn't much of a direct solution without bringing out that dreaded bogeyman of censorship. Most of why there's such a disparity in film representation actually comes from the stunningly misogynistic culture of corporate Hollywood as opposed to actual statistics, but that isn't sustainable. There will come a point where investors start asking why Hollywood is ignoring perfectly good money and no amount of "conventional wisdom" will bail them out. In the meantime, everybody can help by talking with girls about the imagery around them, assuring them that they can go into any industry they like regardless what people tell them, supporting what entertainment with female characters currently exists, voicing their concern about gender representation in entertainment, and creating their own fiction with relevant, powerful female characters.

This is mostly true though there is a logical solution that people always seems to avoid. The obvious solution is for people to take personal responsibility and rather than complaining actually take action. If you don't think there are enough female protagonists well write a screen play get your name out there and make a difference, you can't change the system if you aren't part of it. As for toys it is up to parents to treat their child without gender roles or push them not to play with any gender specific toys. Hell if you care that much just like films etc you can go out and make toys it is a option all it takes is someone to make the effort. Basically I just think people need to do less belly aching and either let there money speak their opinion or actually bother to get involved in the industries to make changes.

 

[Zombie Sodomy]

While the majority of the difference is do to women tending to chose lower paying professions, men do in fact make more at the same basic job. This cause of this problem rests partly in the gender roles we learn as children. Ambition is still thought of as being a male trait and society generally doesn't push women towards personal financial success as much as men. Women are viewed as reliant and are encouraged from birth to be so. This perception is changing, but it still exists. Many women who grew up with these messages could have a lower feeling of self-worth than men, resulting in a tendency not to ask for raises as often (just speculation). Just as a woman may view herself as not worth much, so does society in general. Women are less likely to be promoted, and, as far as teachers are concerned, are the last ones to receive tenure. This is a major problem in our society, but since Obama signed an equal pay law I can't think of any specific legislation that would help. For this to go away we have to change the way society views women, and that sort of thing never happens in a hurry. It has started but we have a long way to go yet.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

The video actually does a much better job of explaining the problem than I thought it would. It's also advocating the uncontroversial proposition that we close the wage gap by re-examining societal pressures that funnel women into certain industries and/or into starting a family. Which is good, because it could easily have devolved in nonsensical denial like so many other responses to the topic.

OT: The thing about the wage gap is that while it's definitely there and it's definitely not desirable, it's functionally impossible to ever totally get rid of it. No matter how you cut it, it boils down to this:

Only women can get pregnant => Pregnancy is necessary to ensure the survival of the human race (duh) => Pregnancy takes a woman out of the workforce for at least several months => Employers value the labour of a worker who may drop out of the workforce for a significant period of time at an indefinite point in the future much less than that of a worker with no obligations outside of their employment.

= women get paid less than men. It's sad, but basically, Earth needs babies, and it's very hard to have babies and make top dollar in some corporate job at the same time.

The problem is really quite complex and a lot of the legal efforts made at reducing the wage gap recognise that complexity. Unfortunately, you still sometimes run across people whose assessment of the problem started and ended with calculating the average income of everyone in the world, noticing the 25%-15% pay difference, and engaging Rant Mode. The reality is that it's a multifaceted problem that is less about sexism and more about economics.

/flameshield

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

Granted there is a world between minimum wage and the boardroom. So my female supervisor who does less work than me gets paid less than her male equivalent? in her instance - good. Anyway, men go to their bosses, with proof of their work and talent and ask for raises. Women just wait until their noticed.

 

[Entitled]

Overall, women are still technically paid less than men are, regardless of the field (except for when we get into areas such as pornography, escorts, etc.), but it seems like, at least according to this data, the difference is not that large.

You just answered your own question.

Pretty much every data point confirms that usually women do get paid less for the same job, even for the ones like this video, the most they can tell is that compared to a badly calculated strawman, the gap is not quite as wide.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I like how some people are using the explanation "because they have lower paying job/less management, high level jobs". Yeah, the fact that women aren't as common in higher level jobs is just as a big a problem as them getting paid less in equivalent jobs, or maybe worse. You just responded to a problem by stating a worse problem!

Even if the gap isn't as great as it might look, I still think that so long as we have this disparity it's still an important issue. It's not really something where you can say "it's bad, but less bad then we thought!" and that makes it better. The issue isn't how big the gap is but that it exists.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I'm fairly sure there was something recently where women were making more money than men now as I remember a comedian making a joke about it at a stand up joking about men being thick.

 

[michael87cn]

I've never earned more than minimum wage (I'm a man) so I don't really care.

I have seen plenty of women that earned more than me if that means anything (it really doesn't).

 

[bluepilot]

i think that men and women have different priorities.

I really really hate to say this because I think that it is sexist but at some point in a woman's life, her hormones kick in and she gets that, "I must have a baby" syndrome. So far, I have been safe from this, but I have seen it happen to other girls. A friend of mine used to hate babies and we would joke about locking children in a "funbox" and stuff, but then the switch happened and she went all baby crazy (noooooo).

I think that this is why women miss out on the top positions though, they have children and they become the priority. As mothers, women no longer want to put in long hours, take on the extra responsibility, or have the stress that comes with these top level positions. I mean, some of these top level jobs look amazing but very few are 9 to 5, you do end up taking your work home, and not to mention the extra hours socializing and stuff so they are not really compatible with someone who wants to prioritize family life.

Not to say that all women are like this though. There are plenty of women out there who are also mothers and run their own company. There are also plenty of women who would rather give motherhood a miss too. There are even some men who prefer to take on the caring role and leave their wives to get the promotions. However, I do think that these cases are exceptions.

I also think that a lot of women are wired to be "carers" and "nurturers" and thus end up in fields such as healthcare and teaching, where only a handful of jobs out of the whole pool actually pay well. Of course there are exceptions and there are plenty of women working in other fields too.

I for one, will never give birth or work with children. But I am not aiming to have a high-paid job either because I would rather have my own life.

 

[Giftfromme]

I like how some people are using the explanation "because they have lower paying job/less management, high level jobs". Yeah, the fact that women aren't as common in higher level jobs is just as a big a problem as them getting paid less in equivalent jobs, or maybe worse. You just responded to a problem by stating a worse problem!

Even if the gap isn't as great as it might look, I still think that so long as we have this disparity it's still an important issue. It's not really something where you can say "it's bad, but less bad then we thought!" and that makes it better. The issue isn't how big the gap is but that it exists.

The only solution is to to enforce 50/50 equality in every field really. I don't know what to do about CEOs, since there is only 1, but maybe half the companies out of the total pool must have a women there. Yeah I like this reasoning. Even better would be enforcing the same wage, regardless of other factors.

As Milton Friedman said, enforcing the same wage would then incur no cost upon a employer who is sexist as he can hire a man for no cost to him. If a woman is able to offer her services for a little less, than it actually costs the sexist employer to hire a man.

 

[WarpZone]

Yes, because even if sexism existed, (which it doesn't,) it wouldn't result in fewer women becoming CEOs. Because every single one of us, man and woman alike, was asked "Would you like to be a CEO, or would you rather flip burgers for a living?" High-paying CEO jobs are not in the least bit exclusive, nor do you have to have wealth and connections in order to even be considered for them. You certainly don't have to be popular (or at least respected) by an equally exclusive group of rich, powerful conservative white men. And even if all of the previous were true, those same rich and powerful conservative white men live in the real world with the rest of us, not in an artificial and self-reenforcing bubble culture designed from the ground up to stroke their egos and delude them into thinking that their position of extreme privilege is the normal state of affairs.

OH. FUCKING. WAIT.

 

[Heronblade]

I like how some people are using the explanation "because they have lower paying job/less management, high level jobs". Yeah, the fact that women aren't as common in higher level jobs is just as a big a problem as them getting paid less in equivalent jobs, or maybe worse. You just responded to a problem by stating a worse problem!

Even if the gap isn't as great as it might look, I still think that so long as we have this disparity it's still an important issue. It's not really something where you can say "it's bad, but less bad then we thought!" and that makes it better. The issue isn't how big the gap is but that it exists.

As with many other things, that depends on the details. If any significant portion of women are being denied higher level jobs due to discrimination, it is indeed a problem we must address. (I am fairly convinced there are still a fair number of backwards old timers who would do such a thing if they can get away with it, but have no solid data on how statistically relevant they are.)

If on the other hand, The gap exists first and foremost because women are statistically less likely to choose to pursue those upper level job postings, which research suggests they are, it may still be a problem in some peoples minds, but is not a matter of discrimination.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Since I notice a number of people confusing a particular element here:

Careful of semantics guys, same field of work =/= same job. It just means they're jobs in a related... well, field.

As in, you could be a desk clerk, or a manager, both being within the same administration field, but both aren't they same job, and are paid according to what the job entails. Field of work and job, especially in this discussion, aren't interchangeable, so please avoid using them as synonyms otherwise this is going to get very convoluted, and cause arguments where each side is arguing over two very different topics. ((it's already happening so far with some of you))

 

[Luna]

The gap is a fair one. Some will try and tell you that it is due to gender discrimination, but ultimately this is a trick used by feminazis to advance women even higher than men, and claim equality despite women taking lower paying jobs.

 

[Karhukonna]

Both me an' the missus are factory workers, and she gets paid more than I do. Her hourly wage is about a euro higher than mine, and her night shift rates are double mine. The only benefit I enjoy over her is double pay on Sunday night.

So yeah, there's a bit of a gap, but it's got more to do with her being in a more aggressive union than me. While we both do manual labor, we're in different fields, she does fabrics and I do steel work. Now there's a macho line of work if I ever saw one.

But the pay... Her trainee-salary was better than my regular salary, for crying out loud. I don't really have a problem with it, seeing as how we're using our money together, but still, it should be me whining about the monetary gap instead of her.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I like how some people are using the explanation "because they have lower paying job/less management, high level jobs". Yeah, the fact that women aren't as common in higher level jobs is just as a big a problem as them getting paid less in equivalent jobs, or maybe worse. You just responded to a problem by stating a worse problem!

Even if the gap isn't as great as it might look, I still think that so long as we have this disparity it's still an important issue. It's not really something where you can say "it's bad, but less bad then we thought!" and that makes it better. The issue isn't how big the gap is but that it exists.

The only solution is to to enforce 50/50 equality in every field really. I don't know what to do about CEOs, since there is only 1, but maybe half the companies out of the total pool must have a women there. Yeah I like this reasoning. Even better would be enforcing the same wage, regardless of other factors.

As Milton Friedman said, enforcing the same wage would then incur no cost upon a employer who is sexist as he can hire a man for no cost to him. If a woman is able to offer her services for a little less, than it actually costs the sexist employer to hire a man.

Because addressing social issues that have discouraged one group from achieving grater things and letting the rest work itself out has never worked. That's why all black people who don't have affirmative action to help them out have service jobs... wait, no that's not right.

All I want is for this to be a thing that people acknowledge and try to deal with. The rest will work itself out.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I like how some people are using the explanation "because they have lower paying job/less management, high level jobs". Yeah, the fact that women aren't as common in higher level jobs is just as a big a problem as them getting paid less in equivalent jobs, or maybe worse. You just responded to a problem by stating a worse problem!

Even if the gap isn't as great as it might look, I still think that so long as we have this disparity it's still an important issue. It's not really something where you can say "it's bad, but less bad then we thought!" and that makes it better. The issue isn't how big the gap is but that it exists.

As with many other things, that depends on the details. If any significant portion of women are being denied higher level jobs due to discrimination, it is indeed a problem we must address. (I am fairly convinced there are still a fair number of backwards old timers who would do such a thing if they can get away with it, but have no solid data on how statistically relevant they are.)

If on the other hand, The gap exists first and foremost because women are statistically less likely to choose to pursue those upper level job postings, which research suggests they are, it may still be a problem in some peoples minds, but is not a matter of discrimination.

I would argue that the institutionalized gender notions are a form of discrimination (i.e. girl are nurses, men are doctors, that sort of gender role kind of stuff that floats around still) but I think we can agree that we should at least encourage women to aim for those higher jobs since they should be able to achieve them (even they don't necessarily want them).

 

[Olas]

Minimum wage is minimum wage regardless if your man or woman. The only class of people that care about the difference in pay are those in the boardrooms. They are so far removed from me i could never bring myself to care. Are the women in the 1 percent payed less than the men in the 1 percent, awwwwwww poor them. I still think they will struggle through even if they have to cut back and only have 2 vacations in Malibu a year.

Maybe you never looked to anything besides minimum wage, but there's a lot between that and a boardroom.

Judgmental comments like this, based purely on assumptions about people you don't know, won't endear you any more to us minimum wage earners. Maybe (like me) he's trying to get a degree and works part time to pay for his education.

And he has a point, it seems silly to worry about slight variances of pay between genders when there's already such huge problem with income inequality and lack of economic mobility in most industrialized nations. I'm more concerned about CEOs who make over 350x the pay of the average worker than whether or not there's a 5% difference between genders.