Misogyny - Thoughts on it and has is become widespread? (1 Viewer)

[djmich]

Also, let's be honest.  Elon Musk and Elizabeth Warren both love being in the spotlight, and they both have thick skins.  I can pretty much guarantee that Warren did not hit the fainting couch over being called "senator Karen" on social media.  She probably had forgotten about that whole exchange by lunch time.  I have a low opinion of Elizabeth Warren, but even I recognize that she doesn't need a white knight here.

Is it misogynistic to believe that women need special exemptions from normal occupational hazards?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Is it misogynistic to believe that women need special exemptions from normal occupational hazards?

Soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

[glvsav37]

Do the fields pay more because of the amount of men in the field?  Do nurses, hairdressers, and teachers get paid less because they were traditionally jobs for women?

 this whole "who is paid more" discussion cant happen in a vacuum. There are just too many variables and professions to lump it into one big number gap. 

I was watching some videos the other day of the guys who climb 1500 ft towers to change a light blub 2x a year at $15k per climb. I didn't see many women lining up to take that  job. 

But about those poor nurses, hairdressers and teachers you mention. 
My brother and his wife, both very liberal are nurses with equal experience. I have never heard a word from them about a pay gap in their profession. I'm sure if it was true, they would be the 1st to be complaining about it

My barber (male hairdresser) was just telling me about the vacation house he just bought upstate. IDK how there would be a wage gap when he sets his prices as well as any other hairdresser, except that he works for himself vs for someone else.

And for those poor teachers...my wife is a NYS public school teacher and trust me, she ain't starving. She will make more over her career than I prob will. And that not including the benefits like HC and pension. But even there, every teacher, male and female, use the same annual salary metric set by the district that fluctuates only by number of credits or degrees you have and what additional in-service credits (school supplied education) you accumulate. So anyone who says one teacher may make more than another in her school is strictly based on any additional work they put in. 

 

 

[supermike80]

Ive hired quite a few people over my years in the transportation industry.  We have a salary for the positions we are hiring for.   In no case ever have I hired a woman and paid her less.  Never.  

 

[Nugget]

Why would I get in my head that Elon Musk may have misogynistic tendencies?

Dec 13th - Elon Musk Is a Misogynist and It Matters

Barraza says she was harassed almost daily for three years at Tesla, with no response from HR except for them disabling their email address that handled complaints.

Oct 29 - With sexist jokes, Elon Musk's tweets sink to a new low

Elon proposes a new college in Texas, ####

Dec 14- Ex-SpaceX Engineer Claims Elon Musk Is 'Sadistic,' Misogyny Is 'Rampant'

“Each and every man who harassed me was tolerated despite the company’s so-called no-tolerance and no-####### policy,” she writes. 

Dec 15 - Tesla sexual harassment lawsuits multiply as 6 more women sue Musk-led firm

Six more women sued Tesla yesterday, alleging that the company failed to stop rampant sexual harassment at factory facilities in Fremont, California, and service centers in the Los Angeles area.

7.28.20 - Elon Musk’s Transphobia on Twitter Is Not a Joke

Musk’s initial tweet was short; it simply said, “Pronouns suck.” This was widely interpreted as a backhanded swipe at trans people, and especially at nonbinary people who use nongendered pronouns such as they/their. Grimes certainly read it as transphobic. Their reply read, “I love you but please turn off ur phone or give me a [c]all. I cannot support hate. Please stop this. I know this isn’t your heart.”

 

[Nugget]

But this is all irrelevant anyway.  Lots of men are nurses and teachers and lots of women are lawyers and accountants.  Male and female nurses make about the same salary, as do male and female accountants.

Women in Accounting

• Women are 61.7% of all accountants and auditors in the United States.
  
• Women are 50% of all full-time staff at CPA firms, but make up just 27% of partners and principals.
  
• Women working as accountants or auditors earned a weekly median salary of $1,141, compared to the weekly median salary of $1,419 earned by men in the same fields in 2019
  

 

[djmich]

Women in Accounting

• Women are 61.7% of all accountants and auditors in the United States.
  
• Women are 50% of all full-time staff at CPA firms, but make up just 27% of partners and principals.
  
• Women working as accountants or auditors earned a weekly median salary of $1,141, compared to the weekly median salary of $1,419 earned by men in the same fields in 2019
  

You can’t just take one variable and conduct an analysis without controlling for other variables.

experience, education, hours worked weekly (men tend to work significantly more)

Data controlled for multiple variables

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Women in Accounting

• Women are 61.7% of all accountants and auditors in the United States.
  
• Women are 50% of all full-time staff at CPA firms, but make up just 27% of partners and principals.
  
• Women working as accountants or auditors earned a weekly median salary of $1,141, compared to the weekly median salary of $1,419 earned by men in the same fields in 2019
  

You need to adjust these types of figures for experience, education, etc. 

At the partner/principal level, women are going to be underrepresented for the same reasons they're underrepresented in most fields that involve labor market tournaments, which would certainly include something like making partner at a big law firm (I assume accounting works more or less the same way).  These types of jobs involve massive, life-warping time commitments during a person's 20s and 30s, with the potential for large payoffs down the road for people who make the cut.  Those types of jobs tend to be extremely unappealing to women for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is because women tend to get pregnant during their 20s and 30s.   

 

[supermike80]

Women in Accounting

• Women are 61.7% of all accountants and auditors in the United States.
  
• Women are 50% of all full-time staff at CPA firms, but make up just 27% of partners and principals.
  
• Women working as accountants or auditors earned a weekly median salary of $1,141, compared to the weekly median salary of $1,419 earned by men in the same fields in 2019
  

Statistics,Iike polls, can and are easily manipulated to support a narrative.  Recognize that

 

[Nugget]

Statistics,Iike polls, can and are easily manipulated to support a narrative.  Recognize that

Thanks for the heads up.  Seems like the narrative I'm reading is that we like the status quo and don't mind the patriarchy.  I've benefitted from it.  

2019 Trends in Accounting

More women are getting their MA in accounting than men, but I'm sure it is still just a educational or  credentials issue.  

 

[Nugget]

You need to adjust these types of figures for experience, education, etc. 

At the partner/principal level, women are going to be underrepresented for the same reasons they're underrepresented in most fields that involve labor market tournaments, which would certainly include something like making partner at a big law firm (I assume accounting works more or less the same way).  These types of jobs involve massive, life-warping time commitments during a person's 20s and 30s, with the potential for large payoffs down the road for people who make the cut.  Those types of jobs tend to be extremely unappealing to women for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is because women tend to get pregnant during their 20s and 30s.   

Do you think we should try to approve the appeal of some of these jobs?  If you like the idea of trying to improve the system, and ideas on what could help?

If there is going to be a pregnancy penalty, are we OK with declining birth rates or are we going to call our children selfish?

 

[supermike80]

Thanks for the heads up.  Seems like the narrative I'm reading is that we like the status quo and don't mind the patriarchy.  I've benefitted from it.  

2019 Trends in Accounting

More women are getting their MA in accounting than men, but I'm sure it is still just a educational or  credentials issue.  

So you say thanks for the heads up then continue to ignore the idea that the statistics are being manipulated to support a case.   Now thats good

 

[Nugget]

So you say thanks for the heads up then continue to ignore the idea that the statistics are being manipulated to support a case.   Now thats good

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Do you think we should try to approve the appeal of some of these jobs?  If you like the idea of trying to improve the system, and ideas on what could help?

If there is going to be a pregnancy penalty, are we OK with declining birth rates or are we going to call our children selfish?

It depends on the job.  I don't work at an R1 and tenure isn't a particularly grueling process here, but "getting tenure at an R1" is definitely a tournament.  You spend the first six years or so of your post-college life in grad school with your life on hold, then you maybe do a postdoc or a visiting position or something (life still on hold), then you spend the next six years trying to get tenure (life still on hold).  By that time, you're in you're early to mid 30s and you still haven't made full professor yet -- that's another five years down the road at least.  And your biological clock is pretty much done at this point. 

This is a system that is extremely unfriendly to women as a group.  More specifically, it's extremely unfriendly to women who want to have a family.  Single women do just fine.  But still, you get the point.  

The problem is that there's no way to "fix" this.  No institution is going to award lifetime employment to somebody who has not proven their academic bona fides -- they're right to demand a track record of really high-quality performance.  But that inherently means asking a lot of young-ish adults, which is inherently family-unfriendly.  A lot of places have expanded the opportunity for non-tenure track employment, but those positions are less prestigious and pay less and they exist more for economic reasons than for anything having to do with gender equality.  Academics are way to the left of most people, but "abolish tenure in the name of gender equity" doesn't have much of a constituency.

 

[AAABatteries]

I didn't know the context of this thread until I read the other one.  Couple of thoughts:

• I would change the thread title.  Saying "has" implies that it wasn't previously widespread
  
• I would both agree that it's widespread (meaning, for me, that elements of it are pervasive in our society) while disagreeing, it seems, with many - I think things are much, much better in this area than we have ever been.  And I feel we improve with every generation.
  

 

[supermike80]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  

Hey...You clearly want to have a world where this misogyny exists...and no one is going to stop you.   We get it.

 

[Nugget]

It depends on the job.  I don't work at an R1 and tenure isn't a particularly grueling process here, but "getting tenure at an R1" is definitely a tournament.  You spend the first six years or so of your post-college life in grad school with your life on hold, then you maybe do a postdoc or a visiting position or something (life still on hold), then you spend the next six years trying to get tenure (life still on hold).  By that time, you're in you're early to mid 30s and you still haven't made full professor yet -- that's another five years down the road at least.  And your biological clock is pretty much done at this point. 

This is a system that is extremely unfriendly to women as a group.  More specifically, it's extremely unfriendly to women who want to have a family.  Single women do just fine.  But still, you get the point.  

The problem is that there's no way to "fix" this.  No institution is going to award lifetime employment to somebody who has not proven their academic bona fides -- they're right to demand a track record of really high-quality performance.  But that inherently means asking a lot of young-ish adults, which is inherently family-unfriendly.  A lot of places have expanded the opportunity for non-tenure track employment, but those positions are less prestigious and pay less and they exist more for economic reasons than for anything having to do with gender equality.  Academics are way to the left of most people, but "abolish tenure in the name of gender equity" doesn't have much of a constituency.

My girlfriend works  at an R1 school teaching engineering mechanics as  non-tenure  faculty.  Retaining females in her department has been a struggle, with over 50% leaving over the past 3 years.  It does not feel like there is a push to attract or retain women to the department.  I don't know if this should be a bigger priority or not.  Women tenure candidates take longer to get approved, even with more experience and grant money.

She seems to get more requests for letters of recommendation and to sit on committees for various university projects.  These seem to lead to longer, uncompensated hours.  There are benefits to the flexible schedule and insurance offerings, so it continues to make the most sense for her.  

 

[Nugget]

Hey...You clearly want to have a world where this misogyny exists...and no one is going to stop you.   We get it.

When I try to add data or links to the thread, you just seem to dismiss it.  I couldn't think of anything I could post for you that you would address in a positive way.

I'll try again - You've mentioned that you work in transportation, trucking specifically I think.  How many women work in your department/industry as a percentage?  Is it a good job and if it is lacking in representation for women, is there anything that could be done to make the job more appealing to them?

 

[Nugget]

I didn't know the context of this thread until I read the other one.  Couple of thoughts:

• I would change the thread title.  Saying "has" implies that it wasn't previously widespread
  
• I would both agree that it's widespread (meaning, for me, that elements of it are pervasive in our society) while disagreeing, it seems, with many - I think things are much, much better in this area than we have ever been.  And I feel we improve with every generation.
  

I agree that it is slowly improving, but I was surprised by the amount of people who don't think it is an issue or something that needs to be improved.   Women can do hard things, and it feels like there is a tone of dismissiveness. 

There aren't many female welders - is it because women don't want to weld or are they tired of being harassed at welding school?  Seems like a fair question to me.  

 

[djmich]

The problem is that there's no way to "fix" this.  No institution is going to award lifetime employment to somebody who has not proven their academic bona fides --

Yah, I’m going to guess these specific institutions will have no problem diluting their standards as woke-ism progresses.

 

[AAABatteries]

He's an unpopular take.  Some of the most misogynistic people around are in other minority groups.

"Other" here implying women are a minority - I think that's technically not true but I'm using it in the colloquial sense.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yah, I’m going to guess these specific institutions will have no problem diluting their standards as woke-ism progresses.

Oh, we're definitely doing that too.  There are entire disciplines out there in the humanities who are actively pressing to make social activism "count" as research for tenure purposes.  That hasn't totally taken hold yet, but it's making good progress and will probably be standard by the time I retire.

 

[supermike80]

When I try to add data or links to the thread, you just seem to dismiss it.  I couldn't think of anything I could post for you that you would address in a positive way.

I'll try again - You've mentioned that you work in transportation, trucking specifically I think.  How many women work in your department/industry as a percentage?  Is it a good job and if it is lacking in representation for women, is there anything that could be done to make the job more appealing to them?

The % is low.   For drivers, it's less than 15%, for other positions, it increases to say 25-35%.  It's a good job.   Why do I want to make it more appealing to women though?  Do the darn job.   What happened to equality. I have zero desire to make the jobs more appealing to them.   Take the job or don't take the job, I couldn't care less.

 

[Nugget]

The % is low.   For drivers, it's less than 15%, for other positions, it increases to say 25-35%.  It's a good job.   Why do I want to make it more appealing to women though?  Do the darn job.   What happened to equality. I have zero desire to make the jobs more appealing to them.   Take the job or don't take the job, I couldn't care less.

Do you have a surplus of truckers?  I thought it was a hard to fill job.  

 

[supermike80]

Do you have a surplus of truckers?  I thought it was a hard to fill job.  

Oh its super hard to fill.   But I'm about making the job more attractive to everyone, and if women want to come as well, thats terrific.  It's not a lack of women that's causing the trucking shortage.   

 

[Sand]

There aren't many female welders - is it because women don't want to weld or are they tired of being harassed at welding school?  Seems like a fair question to me.  

Men tend to me risk takers, more so than women.  This is a dangerous job, one that men tend to fill because of that.  BTW, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2030 thanks to this disparity.  Certainly one of the reasons that those jobs have a premium is the danger involved.  So, one good question for you is - are you ok with killing 4000+ women to even this up and have a more equal male/female pay structure overall?

BTW, this is a good primer on the reasons for the "wage gap" and why the measurement technique is largely the problem.

 

[Nugget]

Men tend to me risk takers, more so than women.  This is a dangerous job, one that men tend to fill because of that.  BTW, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2030 thanks to this disparity.  Certainly one of the reasons that those jobs have a premium is the danger involved.  So, one good question for you is - are you ok with killing 4000+ women to even this up and have a more equal male/female pay structure overall?

BTW, this is a good primer on the reasons for the "wage gap" and why the measurement technique is largely the problem.

Thank you for the links.   I question the motives of the author - his work really tends to lean one direction aligned with a political slant.  

 Did they create Equal Occupational Fatality Day to justify the salary difference?  Should we also have a Maternity Complications Fatality Day or a Domestic Violence Equalization Day?   Women take much more risk getting pregnant or being in a relationship than men.  

Are women less likely to take a dangerous job because hiring managers are "protecting them".  Are we doing the same with jobs that have a lot of math?  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Did they create Equal Occupational Fatality Day to justify the salary difference? 

No.  All else equal, people prefer safe jobs to dangerous jobs.  The labor supply curve for "safe jobs" therefore lies further to the right than the labor supply curve for "dangerous jobs," which results in lower wages for safe jobs relative to dangerous jobs.  

Admittedly, "all else equal" is doing a lot of work here.  Farmhands have a really dangerous job, but they don't get paid anywhere near what a tax attorney would make.  But as a general proposition, it's not surprising that "dangerousness" tends to correlate positively with wages.  That's exactly what theory predicts. 

 

[Nugget]

No.  All else equal, people prefer safe jobs to dangerous jobs.  The labor supply curve for "safe jobs" therefore lies further to the right than the labor supply curve for "dangerous jobs," which results in lower wages for safe jobs relative to dangerous jobs.  

Admittedly, "all else equal" is doing a lot of work here.  Farmhands have a really dangerous job, but they don't get paid anywhere near what a tax attorney would make.  But as a general proposition, it's not surprising that "dangerousness" tends to correlate positively with wages.  That's exactly what theory predicts. 

Agree.  I think it is a stretch.  #18 is small engine mechanic.  8 people died in 2018 at work in this profession.  2nd leading cause was violence.  

25 most dangerous jobs in the US

"Our study found that some jobs are significantly more dangerous than others. The most dangerous job, logging, was 33 times more dangerous than the average job nationwide. Additionally, many of the most dangerous jobs earn average salaries that are below the May 2019 annual mean wage of $53,490. Companies that hire workers with the most dangerous jobs usually have workers’ compensation insurance premiums that are higher than average."

 

[Sand]

Thank you for the links.   I question the motives of the author - his work really tends to lean one direction aligned with a political slant.  

He's an economist - definitely libertarian in nature.  But he backs what he says up with hard numbers, so it's worth reading.

Are women less likely to take a dangerous job because hiring managers are "protecting them".  Are we doing the same with jobs that have a lot of math?  

No, don't think so.  Men are just more prone to take risks. 

Women take much more risk getting pregnant

Hey now - it's "people carrying unborn children".  Women don't exist anymore.

 

[Nugget]

No.  All else equal, people prefer safe jobs to dangerous jobs.  The labor supply curve for "safe jobs" therefore lies further to the right than the labor supply curve for "dangerous jobs," which results in lower wages for safe jobs relative to dangerous jobs.  

Admittedly, "all else equal" is doing a lot of work here.  Farmhands have a really dangerous job, but they don't get paid anywhere near what a tax attorney would make.  But as a general proposition, it's not surprising that "dangerousness" tends to correlate positively with wages.  That's exactly what theory predicts. 

I think I agree with you in general.   I'd expect the risk/pay graph to be somewhat correlated among jobs with similar skillset/education requirements.  I also think a bigger correlation would be tied to family/location for the jobs.  If my dad was a logger in the PacNW, I think it is likely I would follow in the family business.  If my mom is a hairdresser, I'm a hairdresser.  I don't know how much stickiness is in choosing a career - and if that is a factor in this overall topic.

Thanks again for the discussion - I do find it interesting.  

 

[Nugget]

No, don't think so.  Men are just more prone to take risks. 

This is an interesting take, but it looks to be correct in the aggregate.  I may have a lot of aggressive women in my life...

Do Women Take as Many Risks as Men?

by Doug Sundheim  February 27, 2013

A week before delivering the final manuscript of my book, Taking Smart Risks, I came to a disturbing realization. There were 38 stories in the book, but only seven were about women.

Jill Logan, an employee helping me get the final product out the door, noticed it. I was stunned. My first reaction was That can’t be true. I walked over to the whiteboard listing each story and counted them myself: Seven out of 38. She was right.

I looked at Jill and said, “How in the world did this happen!?” I had run that group of stories through so many filters to ensure I was capturing everything in a balanced way — age, size of company, industry, geography. How did I not keep a closer eye on gender? Only 18% of the stories involved women. I felt embarrassed. I thought to myself, “I, of all men, should have caught that.” More than half of my leadership consulting clients over the last decade have been women. Furthermore, twenty years ago, my mother, a PhD in Organizational Psychology, had written a 454-page dissertation titled On Being a Bright and Ambitious Woman — which was, in essence, about women taking risks in business.

After berating myself for 30 minutes, I got genuinely curious. I wanted to answer the rhetorical question I had asked Jill. Really, how in the world did this happen?

I started by looking at the original network of people I had contacted to source the stories: seventy-eight successful, intelligent, forward-thinking men and women. I thought that perhaps I had introduced the bias from the start by contacting more men than women. Nope. The network actually contained more women than men, forty to thirty-eight.

Then I did my best to recreate the universe of potential stories that the network generated. I counted 129. I quickly realized that this is where the imbalance started. Only 47 of the stories (36%) contained women. When I had asked my initial question — “Who, from your personal networks, would you consider smart, successful risk takers?” — two-to-one, more men than women had come to mind, even though the responding group was more female than male.

That was an interesting data point worth further consideration. But it still didn’t account for the final outcome — only 18% of my stories involved women, not 36% or even close to that. I was the perpetrator of this further reduction. From the pool of 129 stories I had collected, eighty-two were about men and I chose thirty-one of them for inclusion — that’s 38% of the male stories. Forty-seven were about women, and I chose seven of them for inclusion — that’s only 15% of the female stories.

I was left with two questions. Why did my network share more male than female stories? And then, with both in hand, why did I still choose a larger percentage of the male stories? I’ve thought about and discussed these questions with both men and women in the six months since Jill brought the discrepancy to my attention. I’ve also pulled some research on the topic. Here are a few things I’ve learned so far.

Men are more inclined to take risks than women. This finding has been replicated in a variety of studies over the years with researchers pointing to economic and evolutionary reasons. A recent study by Mara Mather and
Nichole R. Lighthall found that gender differences are amplified even further under stress. Male risk-taking tends to increase under stress, while female risk taking tends to decrease under stress. One reason is there are gender differences in brain activity involved in computing risk and preparing for action. This seems to be an important finding given the stressful nature of our work lives today. Are men potentially too reckless and women too cautious in these scenarios? What are the implications? One implication might be that, under stress, men and women working together would make smarter risk-taking decisions than either gender alone. This is a topic ripe for further exploration.

People tend to perceive that women are more risk averse than men. Stronger, taller, and more attractive people are perceived to be more risk tolerant, according to research by Sheryl Ball, Catherine C Eckel, and Maria Heracleous. Women are perceived to be more risk averse. That means that women are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting support for risk-taking. This perception bias further compounds the inclination differences mentioned above. I fear this is one of the factors that snagged me as I chose stories for inclusion. I perceived a larger percentage of male stories were simply more compelling than female stories. But on second look, were they really? Did I count women out too early? Maybe I just found it easier to relate to the male stories. Maybe women conceive of risk-taking differently and I just didn’t look through the right lens. Ginni Rometty, CEO of IBM, makes some compelling points along these lines in a 2011 talk. This is another topic ripe for further study.

Risk-taking role models of both genders are important in an increasingly complex world. When facing a risky decision, leaders must weigh a lot of factors. Two of the biggest are, first, the likelihood that the risk in question will help hit strategic objectives and, second, the effect the risk will have on people involved. Accounting for one without the other is a recipe for disaster. In my consulting practice I’ve noticed a tendency for men to put a stronger emphasis on the former and women on the latter. Recent research by Seda Ertac and Mehmet Y. Gurdal supports this observation. To me, this tendency is further evidence that the most successful risk taking is a collaborative effort between men and women (and likely across other differences as well).

To go back to my opening question, “Do women take as many risks as men?” I think they do. The trouble is that historically risk-taking has been framed so narrowly that it skews our perceptions. For example, the majority of studies that point to men having a greater inclination for risk-taking define risk in physical and financial terms. They don’t point to risks like standing up for what’s right in the face of opposition, or taking the ethical path when there’s pressure to stray — important risks that I’ve found women are particularly strong at taking. If these sorts of risks were fully accounted for in our business culture, would it balance the gender perception? I think it would.

I believe that the stories I chose for my book present a thoughtful, balanced approach to risk taking. Many women who have read the book have commented that the examples resonate regardless of gender. At the same time, I realize I missed an opportunity. The only way we’ll redefine professional risk-taking more broadly is to identify and tell more stories of successful female risk takers, balancing the male stories that currently dominate.

 

[belljr]

Still guilty of it time to time..... not proud i have those thoughts.... but it pops up time to time......

 

[Sand]

 I may have a lot of aggressive women in my life...

 

[wildwombat]

You are wrong. Study after study shows men earn more than women.

But study after study also shows men work more dangerous jobs, work longer, and work in fields that pay more.

In other words pay gap, shmay gap 

"Because men work in fields that pay more."

Impossible to argue with logic like that!

 

[parasaurolophus]

"Because men work in fields that pay more."

Impossible to argue with logic like that!

Do you think welders make more than hostesses? 

Nevermind, don't answer that. 

 

[glvsav37]

Still guilty of it time to time..... not proud i have those thoughts.... but it pops up time to time......

We are human. It happens. We are wired to be that way. 
Frankly, these people who have sanitized themselves of any impure thought or expect society to enter some utopia where everyone holds hands and sings a happy song everyday kinda scare me. 

I get it, we all can do better. But we also have moments where we are not so perfect. The key is realizing it and moving on...until something else happens. I'm sorry, I dont think we will ever fully eradicate racism, misogyny, hate, homophobia, and any other bias. Its simply not possible to have every single person reprogramed. All we can do is try and live our lives as pure as we can, raise our kids to be the same and let the good ideas have the majority over the bad...but the bad will always be there.

This push for complete sanitation of thoughts just brings images to mind of those futuristic movies where people are just produced on an assembly line where we have no diversity or independent thought...just a clone of each other in white jumpsuits.
 

 

[ekbeats]

Blah blah blah.  Citing an article from 2019 that references inflammatory remarks made by Tucker Carlson in 2005 in a call-in to a shock jock radio show.  Fail.  Women have done extremely well in my lifetime.  Sure there’s a few knuckleheads out there.  News flash - there always will be.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Appropriate anecdote. My wife’s income crushes my annual income. 

 

[Nugget]

Appropriate anecdote. My wife’s income crushes my annual income. 

Sweet. Do you both have the same job?  Does her job require more education, hours, or risk?

 

[Philo Beddoe]

 No. I work like 6 hours a day. She works 2. Neither require a degree. Mine is significantly riskier. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I think Misandry has spread faster

 

[Da Guru]

Ive hired quite a few people over my years in the transportation industry.  We have a salary for the positions we are hiring for.   In no case ever have I hired a woman and paid her less.  Never.  

I deal with many auto engineers both female and male.  For example when Ford hires an engineer the starting pay scale is set.   Say first year is 75K.  That is for the whoever fills that position.

Now I have dealt with many female and male buyers and sales people, their salaries and bonus are based on production.

 

[Nugget]

I deal with many auto engineers both female and male.  For example when Ford hires an engineer the starting pay scale is set.   Say first year is 75K.  That is for the whoever fills that position.

Now I have dealt with many female and male buyers and sales people, their salaries and bonus are based on production.

Starting pay is still dependent on school, degree, and competitive offers for the same position for FCGs. 

 

[Roy L Fewks]

Misogyny exists, but it is mostly confined to the online gaming world, IMO.

 

[wildwombat]

Do you think welders make more than hostesses? 

Nevermind, don't answer that. 

I have actually learned something from all of this:  when men and women work the same jobs, their salaries are actually a lot closer than I thought:  women only earn about 5% less than men.  Now, that does not address the lack of opportunity that they face in fields like engineering. 

You say that they choose not go into engineering, I say "why is that the case?"  Let's put aside the jobs that require physical strength.  Why are there so few women in fields like engineering and software development?  Could it be that they don't choose them because they are not encouraged, or even discouraged to do so from a very young age?  Our country has a history of pigeon holing women into certain jobs, like "Hostess" or "Secretary" or "Telephone Operator".

And I bring up "Hostess" because I find it really interesting that you used that as your example.  Why?  I had to ask myself, at the risk of insulting all of long term hostesses out there, is "Hostess" really a career aspiration for little girls?  I can see "Welder" being such for little boys, but why "Hostess"?  Why not "Nurse"?  Or "School Teacher" which are other "careers" that are dominated by women.

Just food for thought.  I would say, "Nevermind, don't answer that.," but I don't assume that you won't give some thought to the question.  As I said in my first sentence, your reply did make me do some research.  I discovered that within the same field women and men are actually pretty damn close in what they earn.

But I also found that in the fields I mentioned above (engineering, software development etc.) that do not require physical strength, women are under-represented as a percentage of the work force.  I think that "they choose not to go into them" is a really, really lame answer, but if it is the answer, I ask "Why?  Since women can do these jobs just as well as men?"  It seems less than ideal to me even if I look at it from just an economics point of view.  Shouldn't we be making better use of the resources at our disposal?  why are we letting all of the capabilities that women have to offer go to waste?

I would love to hear what you think about all of this, Parasaurolophous (if that is your real name!)

Oh and Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / Enjoy your day off ... whatever works for you and anybody else that has bothered to read all of this!

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

I have actually learned something from all of this:  when men and women work the same jobs, their salaries are actually a lot closer than I thought:  women only earn about 5% less than men.  Now, that does not address the lack of opportunity that they face in fields like engineering. 

You say that they choose not go into engineering, I say "why is that the case?"  Let's put aside the jobs that require physical strength.  Why are there so few women in fields like engineering and software development?  Could it be that they don't choose them because they are not encouraged, or even discouraged to do so from a very young age?  Our country has a history of pigeon holing women into certain jobs, like "Hostess" or "Secretary" or "Telephone Operator".

And I bring up "Hostess" because I find it really interesting that you used that as your example.  Why?  I had to ask myself, at the risk of insulting all of long term hostesses out there, is "Hostess" really a career aspiration for little girls?  I can see "Welder" being such for little boys, but why "Hostess"?  Why not "Nurse"?  Or "School Teacher" which are other "careers" that are dominated by women.

Just food for thought.  I would say, "Nevermind, don't answer that.," but I don't assume that you won't give some thought to the question.  As I said in my first sentence, your reply did make me do some research.  I discovered that within the same field women and men are actually pretty damn close in what they earn.

But I also found that in the fields I mentioned above (engineering, software development etc.) that do not require physical strength, women are under-represented as a percentage of the work force.  I think that "they choose not to go into them" is a really, really lame answer, but if it is the answer, I ask "Why?  Since women can do these jobs just as well as men?"  It seems less than ideal to me even if I look at it from just an economics point of view.  Shouldn't we be making better use of the resources at our disposal?  why are we letting all of the capabilities that women have to offer go to waste?

I would love to hear what you think about all of this, Parasaurolophous (if that is your real name!)

Oh and Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / Enjoy your day off ... whatever works for you and anybody else that has bothered to read all of this!

On the whole women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things.  On the margins it manifests itself even more so people with the desire to be engineers are overwhelmingly men then mix in the mathematical skill needed, again a more male inclination and engineering will be dominated by males.  The opposite is true of  nursing.   And if you are a woman that demonstrates any acceptable level of skill and desire you will not be lacking in opportunity getting into a school or a job. 

Look up studies of Scandinavian male and female job choices if you doubt it.  Scandinavia is important because they have some of the most open opportunities for both sexes to choose their careers and yet the stereotypes of jobs remains despite the greater choice.

 

[Navin Johnson]

No.  Wages are determined by supply and demand.  

Stopped reading here.  The current labor shortage would suggest otherwise.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Nah, forget it.

 

[djmich]

Stopped reading here.  The current labor shortage would suggest otherwise.

I’m not an economist, but isn’t demand>supply and leading to wages increasing?