You can’t do maths. You can’t split a group and then divide them that voids the entire point because promotions don’t work like that…
Except that you weren’t talking about how promotions work.
I said that simply changing the male/female demographics of workers doesn’t change the average pay for male/female workers, nor the chance for them to get promoted. You answered, and I quote: “A higher representation in a given field means a higher likelihood of promotions and raises for that group“.
I then provided a scenario that disproved what you said: women, despite being outnumbered 3-to-1 by men, had the same chance at becoming promoted (30% of workers got promoted; 30% of female workers got promoted; so 30% of male workers got promoted), and the same average pay (1,6 $) as men. And that doesn’t change, regardless of whether I change the demographics to 900 men/100 women, or to 100 men/900 women.
So, evidently, just having a bigger representation in a field does NOT automatically equate “having a higher chance of getting a raise”.
…and you’ve misrepresented it by using a massive portion. The larger the portion you take the more likely it is to even out. If you promote 5 people out of a 1000 with that split you’re highly likely to pick 5 men compared to 5 women. 30% chance you’ll pick 5 men in a row vs like 3% of picking 5 women in a row.
Actually, assuming that the split is 750 men vs. 250 women, and I picked 5 people at random, the chances of getting 5 men are around 24%, while the chances of getting 5 women are less than 0,1%.
However… the chances of getting 4 men and 1 women (which is the scenario that most closely resembles my “75% men/25% women” split) is roughly 40%.
And I could go on for more. Do you know what’s the chance of promoting 10 people and getting 10 men? 6%. Getting 9 men and 1 woman? 19%. 8 men and 2 women? 28%. Oh, look at that: the ratio of male-promoted-workers-vs.-female-promoted-workers tends to resemble the ratio of male-workers-vs.-female-workers.
Do you wanna claim that, because male workers are 75% of all workers, then that means that, in the absence of other factors that might modify the proportions, male workers get more than 75% of promotions?
Men generally occupy higher earning jobs…
Time to dig up again that old post I did:
“Women choose less remunerative jobs. That’s why, as a whole, they’re paid less than men.”
It would be more appropriate to say that jobs that are dominated by women are considered less prestigious, and thus are paid less. Look at Russian doctors - they are as qualified as UK and USA doctors, but while the latter two are mostly male and are one of the most prestigious professions in their countries, the former is mostly made up by women and it’s one of the lowest-paid jobs in Russia. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Another example: nursing! A job dominated by women, not very prestigious. Then men started pourig in, and the wages began to raise. Oh, and a gender wage gap formed - in favor of men, of course. And it’s not the only example - the same thing happened in women-dominated fields such as administrative assistant, teacher, and babysitters.
In fact, literally EVERY SINGLE workfield that became female-dominated in the USA lost prestige and wages. No, it’s not that women are attracted to lower-paying jobs - the study actually tested for that explanation, and they found it unsupported by the evidence.
When every choice women make is turned into the “wrong” one, you can’t blame women for making the “wrong” choice.
(By the way, the reverse phenomenon - jobs that become male-dominated and thus seen as “masculine” gain prestige and wages? Also true. Just look at computer programming. Or at film screenwriting and editing.)
Also, this thread here offers various other examples.
…and generally strive more than women for promotions etc…
That doesn’t counter the fact that, for example, women who had been pregnant are offered less promotions than workers who took the exact same amount of leave, and returned to work with the exact same efficiency and striving for promotions. Hell, women who never were pregnant but are believed that they eventually will are offered less promotions than male colleagues with the excact same efficiency, striving for promotions,
…and often ask for raises whereas women do not do this often.
Mostly because men who aggressively ask for raises can get it, while women who do the exact same get penalized.
You’re just ignoring everything I’m saying. on average 30% of women leave the workforce after having a child. Living off the state is financially viable when you have a child because the money you get skyrockets if you meet certain thresholds which you often do as a single parent that’s why 40% of single women don’t work did you just ignore the statistics?
Which ones - the statistics that don’t exist and that you haven’t linked to?
In the USA you get a minimum of 12 weeks by federal law and many states extend that. In the rest of the developed world the period is a lot longer.
Yeah, no. Under federal USA law, you get 0 paid weeks for maternal leave.
You’re trying to say it’s unfair that someone who chooses to take a year off work gets less opportunities around that time than someone who was forced not to work for a significantly shorter period of time by circumstance.
No, I’m saying that, if A takes a maternity leave and B takes an equally long leave for any other reason (including by B’s own choice), and they both come back to work with the same efficiency, on average A faces harsher penalties (in terms of missed raises/promotions/hiring chance) than B.
And funny how you, yet again, showed your bias by assuming that B was forced to take a much shorter leave than A.
You’re fucking stupid. If they took the same amount of leave and came back at the same level of efficacy there is no difference, aside from one being a choice and one not being a choice…
Nope - you just assumed that B didn’t took their own leave by choice.
…also how can you work and be a stay at home parent? You cannot stay at home and also work.
You can, however, get a job that doesn’t consume much time and isn’t much stressful. Instead of, you know, concentrating fully on your career and aim for a full-time high-responsibility high-pay position.
The point is that, if A and B both return to work and aim for a low-stress low-pay position, A gets penalized. If A and B both return to work and aim for a high-stress high-pay position. A still gets penalized.
It is statistically more likely, people are not machines and therefore you cannot say all men will take more overtime but the trend is that men generally do.
And yet you’re assuming that men will do more overtime as a justification for giving more promotions to men without actually checking which ones of your workers takes more overtime and which one doesn’t.
You ignored all the explanations on the psychological differences between men and women? And he does touch on that by referencing the study done in Scandinavia where gender equality is paramount in law and there are still massive differences in men and women in traditional male and female jobs.
It’s almost as if gender roles are an entrenched social construct that cannot simply be dismantled by writing a line on a piece of paper…
“Gender Roles” are a result of evolution just like in every other sexually dimorphic animal.
Oh, so your answer was “gender roles exist primarily because of biology”. Alright then, answer the following questions:
What biological component, exactly, causes gender roles?
Different cultures have different of gender roles. But according to you, gender roles are primarily dictated by biology. Are you saying that different cultures have radically different biology?
Cultures (and gender roles) change over time - WAY faster than the usual times required forbiological evolution. Are you saying that the biology of gender roles evolves and mutates in mere decades, while the evolutionary process usually takes thousands if not millions of years?
prguitarman
blakekathryn
yousharknotpass
ellievsbear
germansingergirl
