This issue is one of the best examples of a culture that preaches "follow the science" with religious fervor, but doesn't really want to look into the dark places that science inevitably points.
I don't know if it was factored into the study (I only had time for a few quick keyword searches, and didn't see it) but I frequently hear commentators making the point that men's personalities (general interest bias toward "things") vs women's personalities (general interest bias toward "people") results in an imbalance as well. One woman, working as a nurse, can only do so much nursing. In that way, her ability to generate economic value is inherently capped. Conversely, one man, who let's say invents a widget that increases nursing efficiency by 1%, can have that improvement propagated globally, resulting in the generation of vastly more economic value.
In that sense, there is a Marx-ish assumption lying at the bottom of the "20% wage gap" argument. That being that all units of labor are of equal value.
Oh, and a nit: Sometime mid-20th century, there was a language shift that we should undo. We replaced "sex" with "gender", presumably because of middle-American squeamishness over the word "sex".
I think it is past time to un-do that damage.
IMHO, the word "sex" should be preferred in the context of this article. "Gender" has become infinitely fluid, and more or less stripped of all meaning.
Report is dated Jan 12, 2009. That's technically the Bush administration.
I've tried arguing these concepts. Generally they just stick their fingers in their ears and keep repeating the overall gap figure and how sexism is the only possible reason (or acknowledge a different reason but that reason is rooted in sexism as well). Like how guns are the only thing to be concerned about in gun violence and any solution not involving controlling them is dismissed outright.
Thanks for the review, a somewhat welcome respite from vaccines and the Ukraine. I certainly was not aware of the clear ANOVA type work done back then and it clearly works against the narrative we always see. I always thought if business could pay less than they had to pay, they would and men would no longer have those jobs. My single parent male friends also inform me of their more difficult choices and compromises made even worse as their kids became teens.
There is an awful lot that nature and our human evolution has done to create what males and females are prone to think and do that can account for much in the conventional workplace. I was always willing to put in those hours and hit the road comfortable in knowing my home and children would be OK supported by my wife. I observed much the same in my engineering cohorts. Not all could or would do what I did and as a manager I fully understood their circumstance. Once higher in the management chain it gets even worse, I discovered, in the constant demands. Many of the female engineers, a rare commodity indeed, rarely could put in that effort once children arrived despite stay at home dads (even rarer). I have tried to mentor and support them but nature (children) often intervened. Keeping up with technology in engineering is hard enough that leaving it for a period really hurts. Few females enter fields dominated by math and we can and are getting better at asserting math is not a barrier just another way to explain things. The females I worked with were a benefit in terms of a different viewpoint over a problem. I do lament the fact few are in the field. But even at birth males and females differ in their preferences.
I really do appreciate this article and sent a beer. Wish we could share a few, although now I can only handle two.
I started a business 20 years ago as a female consultant in civil engineering. In 2002, I knew of exactly one female engineer. Now, I still know one female P.E. and two female E.I.T.s. This is out of the hundred or so engineers that I work with.
This is very useful. But I do think it reduces out the discrimination issue a little quickly. People on the left may define gender discrimination as *employer* discrimination, but not necessarily. You mention that most single parents are women. The study also seems to imply that across all parenting situations mothers are more responsible for child care than fathers, and are more responsible for elder care. It is at least prima facie plausible, I think, to describe these tendencies as “structural sexism” or something. They arise through culturally defined roles, through some probably unmeasurable mixture of individual preferences and social pressure. Not the sort of thing amenable to a policy fix, but not apolitical either.
Everyone who's actually worked a corporate job knows that women *doing the same work at the same skill level* area paid more than their male counterparts. And benefit from all sorts of overt sex discrimination programs.
This issue is one of the best examples of a culture that preaches "follow the science" with religious fervor, but doesn't really want to look into the dark places that science inevitably points.
I don't know if it was factored into the study (I only had time for a few quick keyword searches, and didn't see it) but I frequently hear commentators making the point that men's personalities (general interest bias toward "things") vs women's personalities (general interest bias toward "people") results in an imbalance as well. One woman, working as a nurse, can only do so much nursing. In that way, her ability to generate economic value is inherently capped. Conversely, one man, who let's say invents a widget that increases nursing efficiency by 1%, can have that improvement propagated globally, resulting in the generation of vastly more economic value.
In that sense, there is a Marx-ish assumption lying at the bottom of the "20% wage gap" argument. That being that all units of labor are of equal value.
Oh, and a nit: Sometime mid-20th century, there was a language shift that we should undo. We replaced "sex" with "gender", presumably because of middle-American squeamishness over the word "sex".
I think it is past time to un-do that damage.
IMHO, the word "sex" should be preferred in the context of this article. "Gender" has become infinitely fluid, and more or less stripped of all meaning.
Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in some of the meetings after this study was published.
Report is dated Jan 12, 2009. That's technically the Bush administration.
I've tried arguing these concepts. Generally they just stick their fingers in their ears and keep repeating the overall gap figure and how sexism is the only possible reason (or acknowledge a different reason but that reason is rooted in sexism as well). Like how guns are the only thing to be concerned about in gun violence and any solution not involving controlling them is dismissed outright.
Thanks for the review, a somewhat welcome respite from vaccines and the Ukraine. I certainly was not aware of the clear ANOVA type work done back then and it clearly works against the narrative we always see. I always thought if business could pay less than they had to pay, they would and men would no longer have those jobs. My single parent male friends also inform me of their more difficult choices and compromises made even worse as their kids became teens.
There is an awful lot that nature and our human evolution has done to create what males and females are prone to think and do that can account for much in the conventional workplace. I was always willing to put in those hours and hit the road comfortable in knowing my home and children would be OK supported by my wife. I observed much the same in my engineering cohorts. Not all could or would do what I did and as a manager I fully understood their circumstance. Once higher in the management chain it gets even worse, I discovered, in the constant demands. Many of the female engineers, a rare commodity indeed, rarely could put in that effort once children arrived despite stay at home dads (even rarer). I have tried to mentor and support them but nature (children) often intervened. Keeping up with technology in engineering is hard enough that leaving it for a period really hurts. Few females enter fields dominated by math and we can and are getting better at asserting math is not a barrier just another way to explain things. The females I worked with were a benefit in terms of a different viewpoint over a problem. I do lament the fact few are in the field. But even at birth males and females differ in their preferences.
I really do appreciate this article and sent a beer. Wish we could share a few, although now I can only handle two.
I started a business 20 years ago as a female consultant in civil engineering. In 2002, I knew of exactly one female engineer. Now, I still know one female P.E. and two female E.I.T.s. This is out of the hundred or so engineers that I work with.
This is very useful. But I do think it reduces out the discrimination issue a little quickly. People on the left may define gender discrimination as *employer* discrimination, but not necessarily. You mention that most single parents are women. The study also seems to imply that across all parenting situations mothers are more responsible for child care than fathers, and are more responsible for elder care. It is at least prima facie plausible, I think, to describe these tendencies as “structural sexism” or something. They arise through culturally defined roles, through some probably unmeasurable mixture of individual preferences and social pressure. Not the sort of thing amenable to a policy fix, but not apolitical either.
Everyone who's actually worked a corporate job knows that women *doing the same work at the same skill level* area paid more than their male counterparts. And benefit from all sorts of overt sex discrimination programs.