Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

All Else Being Equal: Disputing Claims of a Gender Pay Gap In Tech

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the cash-on-the-table-or-not? dept.

Stats 427

An anonymous reader writes "Synthia Tan writes that when you investigate the actual data, controlling for non-gender factors (like number of hours worked) the gender pay gap seems to disappear. 'A longitudinal study of female engineers in the 1980s showed a wage penalty of essentially zero.' In some cases women make more than men: women who work between 30 and 39 hours a week make 111% of what their male counterparts make." The researchers were studying more recent data, too; what are things like on this front where you work?

cancel ×

427 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I really have no idea (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#46395669)

I really have no idea what any of my colleagues earn (within salary bands), but I have no reason to think there is a difference. Certainly both make and female seem to be as happy with their packages.

Re:I really have no idea (0, Offtopic)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#46395735)

I like female packages. [/dongle joke>

Re:I really have no idea (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46395801)

Two words: oriented graphs...

IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395927)

Why would employers be hiring so many overpriced men?

Re:IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY... (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#46395995)

Now THAT is an insightful rhetorical question.

Employers, especially today, have loyalty only to their money; their profit margins; their bottom lines. It doesn't actually fit that there would be institutionalized sexism if only because it is not the most profitable way to do things. All of these "-isms" are lies. Who profits from the lies? Turns out a lot of people do. Look to the budgets and pay of SPLC leadership among others. These non-profits are very expensive to run.

Cake. Have and Eat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396371)

Yeah, sure.

All employers are evil-bad. Not only to they pay women less, because they want to maximize profit, they pay men more because the want to ... uhhh ... Hmmm ... Be bad to women!

(moving past the logical inconsistency, nothing to see here)

So, in conclusion, employers are bad!

Because men don't quit to have children (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396319)

I know, troll. But I'm serious. It's a factor in manpower planning, especially in smaller teams.

Re:IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396325)

Sexist! Racist!

Prejudicial thinking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396333)

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see. Studies showing the pay disparity disappears when you account for "non-gender" differences have been around for decades, but they have always been ignored, as this one will be, because they don't advance the prejudicial concept that men are bad.

Yeah, but women want it all (5, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46395809)

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395889)

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group? Ridiculous. Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals. Don't they realize how much easier it is just to relax with a bunch of inaccurate preconceptions?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (5, Informative)

cyborg_zx (893396) | about 6 months ago | (#46395913)

it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality"

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group?

Feminist = entire gender group?

Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals.

Might want to actually try seeing what these people are saying because it's about as far from that as one can get.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396239)

making sweeping generalizations

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Be honest now, Mr. Inaccurate Preconceptions. Show us evil sexists that we're soooo wrong, with all your stories of the women you've known who *really* wanted to be treated equally.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (0)

somersault (912633) | about 6 months ago | (#46396291)

Just so you know, the AC may also be a woman. And actually probably is. Either that or a man who's never seen any news articles or blogs by "feminists".

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (5, Insightful)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about 6 months ago | (#46396349)

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Not the person you're replying to, but I felt I should step in here...

My wife always paid her fair share when we dated. I honestly felt a little uncomfortable about it at first, but she insisted.

She loves it when I buy her flowers and jewellery, but she'll buy me stuff I like too; so that seems even to me.

I'll hold doors open for her, and she is happy that I do. But she'll hold doors open for me too, and I'm happy that she does.

She most certainly would expect me to defend her in a fight; but equally, I'd expect her to defend me in one. (neither of us is particularly physically inclined, but we're also not really the types to get in to fights; so thus far it hasn't been a situation that has arisen)

Basically my point is that just because a woman expects some things from the guy, it doesn't mean she's asking for unequal treatment... she may be willing to do all those same things too.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396415)

Wait, a well-adjusted person who understands that women are people? What are you doing on Slashdot?!

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (1, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 6 months ago | (#46395899)

Yes, you will indeed be accused of being sexist, because you are one.

From the moment when you think of "women" or even "feminists" as a single minded entity, with a single definition for a concept, you reveal that you indeed possess the common flaw of oversimplifying the world in at least one of the many possible ways.

There's no such thing as "what women think", just as there is not such a thing as "what human beings think".

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (-1, Flamebait)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#46395923)

Ah yes. Quite correct. And men are sexist pigs. That is all.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396383)

"From the moment when you think of "women" or even "feminists" as a single minded entity, with a single definition for a concept, you reveal that you indeed possess the common flaw of oversimplifying the world in at least one of the many possible ways."

Exactly. Just like when leftists talk about society as if it were some sort of single minded entity.

"There's no such thing as "what women think", just as there is not such a thing as "what human beings think"."

Exactly. Just as there is no such thing as "what society thinks".

Preach on Brother.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (5, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 6 months ago | (#46395921)

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

You're new to this planet. See, there's this thing called human nature . . .

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (5, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 6 months ago | (#46395937)

Not gonna say you're sexist, just that you hang out with bad women. What you've just described is the typical gal who hangs out in a bar waiting for Prince Charming to come along and pay her way through life. My sister was one such woman, and I viewed her as a negative role model. If a woman is hanging out in a bar trying to meet guys, it's because she's a boring person and doesn't have anything else better to do with her life. Women with actual hobbies and interests have no trouble finding men (which is why they're taken), and they tend to be nicer people overall.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396105)

Not gonna say you're sexist, just that you hang out with bad women. What you've just described is the typical gal who hangs out in a bar waiting for Prince Charming to come along and pay her way through life.

so, I take it then that your wife/GF insisted on going dutch on all your dates?

What?? No?????

Then STFU. OP was right. Women want all the perks. And that's ALL women, not just the barfly skanks, as you imply.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (5, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 6 months ago | (#46396049)

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

well, speaking as a man, i also want to get paid as much money as i can, be fawned over, and get free food all while not being physically attacked.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396161)

well, speaking as a man, i also want to get paid as much money as i can, be fawned over, and get free food all while not being physically attacked.

And if you demanded any of this, women would be the first to attack you or mock you for it. Unfortunately, they're so used to being sucked up to by men that they've developed quite the sense of entitlement for themselves (but not for anyone else, of course). It's why so many of them are selfish narcissists who can't handle any criticism.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (2)

asylumx (881307) | about 6 months ago | (#46396397)

And if you demanded any of this, women would be the first to attack you or mock you for it.

Really? Cuz he just did, and you were literally the first to attack or mock him for it. I assume you're not a woman, but I think that's a reasonable assumption given the context.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396387)

So... how much do you cost... in maintenance? (wink, wink)

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396403)

Yes, but the point is would you consider that equality?

And the answer (I hope) is "no".

Re: Yeah, but women want it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396051)

I actually heard a Woman argue "Male domination is necessary in order to achieve net gender equality". I tried to find the flaw in Her logic but have not done so so far.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396193)

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this ...

Here on /., you should try "I may get modded down for saying this ...". (But we're on to that one).

... the taboo on physically attacking you.

Where the hell are you working/hanging out where it's ok for *men* to be physically attacked?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (3, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46396289)

Where the hell are you working/hanging out where it's ok for *men* to be physically attacked?

Are you seriously going to pretend that punching a woman in anger is no more taboo in modern Western society than punching another man? Seriously?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 6 months ago | (#46396421)

Are you going to seriously pretend that is in any way what he said?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all (2, Insightful)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 6 months ago | (#46396301)

I know a lot of women who have self-identified as feminists for years, and not a single one of them fits the description you have. All the feminists I know are hard-working professional women, hard-working homemakers, or both. That includes some of my peers and managers in the tech field, by the way. Maybe you've just been spending time with some unusually selfish women -- it's possible; there are jerks of both genders out there. I suggest finding a different peer group, because your current one seems to have made you a little bitter.

Also: there's no "taboo" against people physically attacking a woman, or a man for that matter. It's just plain wrong.

(And yes, for making derogatory caps-lock- and scare-quote-heavy generalizations about a group of people so which you don't belong, you can expect to be labelled as biased. That seems pretty fair to me.)

Similar to most studies (4, Informative)

ranton (36917) | about 6 months ago | (#46395683)

I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap. When you factor in that women are known to negotiate less for salary the gap probably disappears completely.

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all). Focusing on the wage gap is pretty silly now.

Re:Similar to most studies (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395751)

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all).

I think a big part of it is that those jobs tend to come with a shitty work/life balance and cultures that encourage crazy hours (especially in engineering type positions). Women tend to be more into the work/life balance and tend to have more time obligations outside of work (kids being the big one).

The only other argument that makes any sense to me is established culture, which kinda ties into that. An office full of mostly guys is going to have a very guy culture, same as an office full of women is going to have a women culture. All the little silly office stuff on it's own probably doesn't matter, but collectively I could see it making a job unappealing. I have a hard time listening to a female coworker talk about her kids for like a half hour at lunch.. an office filled with women who do this constantly would probably drive me insane, so I can see the reverse being true.

Re:Similar to most studies (2, Insightful)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46395967)

Kids are only a bigger obligation for women because society expects them to do the majority of care and household work, even when they have full time jobs. If that weren't true, then you would see dads having the same problem and working less hours.

Re:Similar to most studies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396215)

Well there are those 9 months where women do not have the posibillity of offloading most of their work/pain - due to it growing inside them. But otherwise i agree. its a mostly social issue. But I am not even sure we need 100% equality... then we would have a lot of idealistic individiuals who would have to find new causes to rage about :) I personally also much prefer to be treated by a female doctor/nurse, am i a feminist or a male sexist? and then you have a lot of women who actually fight for their "baby perogative" to the point that the father should be entirely left out of the childs life... There will never be equality because neither side is 100% for it.

Re:Similar to most studies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396305)

It's not just society - from what I see very many of them WANT to do the "mother stuff" - not so much the household work bit.

Guys are more likely (not 100% but more likely) to go baby crying again? Check stuff out, doesn't want milk, no fever, everything seems OK, must be the teething, then put on earplugs/earphones and go to sleep (maybe in a different room if possible).

More moms can't do that sort of thing (till maybe the 3rd or 4th kid ;) ). They won't be able to sleep.

And even if society expects dads to do it, dads are more likely to ignore what society says or say "fuck off" (for similar reasons that's why more males are criminals, nutjobs, CEOs and leaders).

I think it's in the genetic programming, if mothers were more like us guys there wouldn't be 7 billion of us on this planet- there'd still be humans but fewer :).

Re:Similar to most studies (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 6 months ago | (#46395885)

There's quite a lot of dispute that there was ever a gender based wage gap. Reading Dorothy Dix from the 20s and 30s, she seemed to think that men and women were compensated equivalently at that time, and earlier. Which if you think about it makes sense, if a company could hire one gender for less, why wouldn't they hire that gender exclusively?

Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?

Re:Similar to most studies (0)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 6 months ago | (#46395951)

Let's play "count the fallacies". Go!

Re:Similar to most studies (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 6 months ago | (#46395997)

Play this video instead, an interview with Thomas Sowell from it looks like the 60s, where he's saying exactly the same thing as is apparently being "discovered" these days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

And this mind you was around the time of second wave feminism.

Re:Similar to most studies (3, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 6 months ago | (#46396129)

The most amusing thing about President Obama going on about gender pay inequality is that one of the few places where it is significant is one of the places where he has the most control over it, White House staff. There have been several reports that women who work at the White House are paid significantly less than men working at the White House, even when they are filling the same role.

Re:Similar to most studies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396201)

> The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all).

In STEM for example, there is a huge push over "WE NEED TO HIRE MORE FEMALE STEM WORKERS". This is of course, absurd. The STEM industry doesn't need more women anymore than it needs more men. STEM needs more qualified human beings capable of doing the job.

In many societies including Canada and the US, starting at a young age, men and women are encouraged to go down certain career paths. So men become doctors and women become nurses, but a hospital shouldn't be under any obligation to hire more male nurses just because they are male nor should they hire more female doctors solely because they are female.

Re:Similar to most studies (1)

WileyC (188236) | about 6 months ago | (#46396225)

The biggest difference in male/female pay is that women, as a group, value things like family life and health more than money. I think that's a perfectly rational choice and it's really demeaning to women when people are spouting claims that they are being paid so much less. Women know their worth as much as men and they get it! But what they are getting is a healthier, happier lifestyle. =)

Pretty much this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395685)

From a very small sample set, women seem more into the whole work/life balance thing and are more burdened by their life schedule. Guys seem more into the live at work and make a tonne of money but have no life thing.

Re:Pretty much this (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 6 months ago | (#46395839)

I've also known a few guys who spend more time at work to get away from the wife, but rarely do I see the opposite.

I am not surprised (5, Insightful)

dptalia (804960) | about 6 months ago | (#46395693)

I've been discriminated against because of both my gender and my religion, but I have NEVER been paid less than my male colleagues. I may not have had the opportunities to grow given to me, but I've always made good money. In my current job I'm one of the highest paid people on my contract. My personal experience is that there's no pay gap - do your job and get paid accordingly,.

Re:I am not surprised (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46395753)

My wife has experienced gender discrimination also. Most recently, our power company was coming by to do some work on a pole behind our house. They wanted to pull a giant truck up our neighbor's narrow driveway (right up against our house), onto our lawn, reach it over our garage, and do the work. When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.

As far as pay goes, though, I have nothing to compare against. I don't know my co-workers' salaries and even if I did there are different levels of experience and they do slightly different jobs than I do. The two women I mainly work with might actually be paid more than me because of years of experience.

Re:I am not surprised (4, Insightful)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#46396023)

When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.

1. That hardly makes any sense, but okay.

2. Your wife and you have an extremely low bar for sexual discrimination.

So by your rather sensitive standards, every time I hear "You're not a woman - you couldn't understand", or "Men are pigs", then would that not be discrimination? Or about some feminine hygiene product being superior because it was invented by a female doctor? All of that is just more ways of saying "men are inferior".

We see this sort of thing all the time, but have been conditioned to the idea that only men are ever sexist.

Re:I am not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396299)

I also thought he had something usefull to add, while what he added was a single pair of workers being asses - as if it proves anything.

Re:I am not surprised (1)

realsilly (186931) | about 6 months ago | (#46396409)

Point 1, while I agree does happen, more often than naught, doesn't quite fit the topic of discussion.
Point 2, you have nothing to compare too.

As a woman, I have seen my own fair share of discrimination, but I know it exists under the surface and I go out of my way to try to prove myself. The study in this article does show a trend of hiring and pay practices in particular fields to show little to no discrimination; however in other fields such as a stock broker, or other high-paying fields, women don't fair as well. The higher up the chain of most companies the more white males see in a position of power and authority.

Granted not all industries are like that, but a majority, and pay discrimination at the beginning of a career is not indicative of the issues of pay disparity that women face the longer they are in a career. This of course, is not easy to break apart to find the one answer, because there is no One answer to this topic.

I have heard that in the past (don't know if it still happens today) that men in positions of authority would hold high level discussions at a Men-Only golf club or a strip club. I know this to be true because I've seen it first hand. These types of tactics by a few close out opportunities for women at the same level to move higher in ranks of their company. So a woman must either report the matter to HR, which always gets out, even though it's supposed to be private; or she must step into those uncomfortable situations, such as going to a strip club, to keep herself in the loop of what's going on in the company. If she's forcibly kept out of the loop, on open dialog then that is clear definition of discrimination which will lead to pay disparity.

Re:I am not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396275)

We all get discriminated against occasionally, women, men, large and small, yellow and blue, smart and stupid. If not systematically then occasionally by ignorant people. But you will always find some who seems tyo always run into discrimination - in my limited experience they often look for it and do what they can to place themself in thesituation - so they can complain about it. (and as a white scandinavian male, i have also been discirminated against, its part of being human, not everyone will like you and what you stand for)

Re:I am not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396323)

My spouse gets paid at least as much as her colleagues, but she faces a hostile work environment. (Engineering, not tech) Some temps have ignored her instructions or gone around her, possibly because they don't like taking direction from a woman, or possibly because they know they can get a break from her boss. She's trying to walk the line between holding people accountable (their mistakes cost the company real money) and being labeled a bitch. She's lost respect for her boss for failing to back her up (he'll say she's right, but they can't get rid of one *temp* because "he has a family to feed"), but at least she gets paid to put up with their bullshit.

I think she would have been moved to management by now if there wasn't a sense that a non-trivial segment of men in her industry/department have a problem with women in charge. The 2 out of 14 top execs who are women came out of marketing and human resources, not operations.

All the same here (4, Informative)

germansausage (682057) | about 6 months ago | (#46395705)

I have 2 junior engineers and 2 engineers-in-training working for me. One of each sex (like Noah's Ark really) and men and women in each job class are paid the same. I have one senior guy who is paid more, but he has 25 years in the field and a lot more knowledge and skills.

Re:All the same here (2)

CadentOrange (2429626) | about 6 months ago | (#46395711)

So if aliens invaded and wanted to create a super race of engineers, you're in for a good time?

Re:All the same here (2)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 6 months ago | (#46395953)

New EITs for us are at the same rate, but we actually see women accelerate faster. Unfortunately, they seem to catch on to the whole live/work balance faster than men which makes retention harder and flattens wages. On a case-by-case basis, it comes down to work output.

Right now though, we could pay a 40% premium for an exceptional female mechanical PE with 15-20 years of experience, but that is definately an outlier.

Misogyny (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395709)

Even if this is true, it will be labelled misogyny and never be accepted by rabid feminists.

Re:Misogyny (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395741)

Facts can be very annoying to people with strong convictions. Generally, they solve this by denying them and questioning the inetegrity of the messengers.

Re:Misogyny (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#46395869)

Facts can be very annoying to people with strong convictions. Generally, they solve this by denying them and questioning the inetegrity of the messengers.

They could also solve it by attacking the methodology. Is it really fair to correct for "hours worked" rather than "work done"? So the guys get paid more, but it is okay because they stick around till 9pm playing Minecraft and reading Slashdot.

Re:Misogyny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396017)

Things might have changed since I last looked, but to the best of my knowledge there is no meaningful way to measure "work done" in tech fields. A bug that appears simple might take weeks to fix, and a bug that appears hard might take minutes. Lines of code mean nothing, number of functions/classes/files is almost arbitrary.

Who would have thought? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395715)

This was pretty evident to anyone, except ardent feminists, policy makers who want to regulate and control everything and people without even the most basic grasp of statistics. Good to see that there is now a peer-reviewed study that explicitly debunks the gender-related salary gap myth.

In other news... (1)

Christianson (1036710) | about 6 months ago | (#46395757)

When you control for species, there are no differences between humans and lizards.

It's good that sexual discrimination legislation has (mostly) sorted out the problem of women not being paid the same for equal work. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, there's a salary gap. As the linked article points out, some big factors out of this are the fact that women tend to leave their jobs more early, to have more intermittent commitments to work. The article seems quite content to leave the implication that, basically, this means that it's all the fault of women for just not caring about their career enough. Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this. In the UK, for example, the statutes are actually quite sexist in this regard: statutory maternity leave is available for a year, but statutory paternity leave is only available for at most half a year, and that requires that the mother return to work; otherwise it is only two weeks. Which means that, should a couple wish to start a family, it is necessarily the mother that is going to take the brunt of time away from work and the perceived lack of career commitment that will result.

Re:In other news... (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 6 months ago | (#46395847)

Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this.

That is a good point, but as usuall, the most likely but least obvious possibility is ignored: Sometimes called work/life-balance, but maybe women just don't see a point in taking part in that life-long pissing contest that "career" in our corporate world became? If that guy next to you does 10 hours of unpaid overtime to impress his manager, you're doing 12, right? The people deciding about promotions like that kind of commitment. And so on.

Re:In other news... (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46395991)

What you're not considering though is that, in order for that guy to be able to do 10 hours of unpaid overtime, he has to have a wife at home willing to do all the child care and house work, even if she also has a full time job. It is societally expected that women will do that for a husband, so they are able to do crazy things like that. Of course, he might not have a family, but that situation is not in the majority. Most men have families and their wife picks up the slack at home.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396241)

I don't have to have a wife at home to do my 10 hours of unpaid overtime. I also don't have a child. The house work....well, lets be honest, my house is a sty. But the point stands, you don't need a wife at home when you're doing that. Things not getting done when dealing with inanimate objects is always an option.

Re:In other news... (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46396395)

Yes, being single is surely an option, but most people are not single. I was speaking to those situations, which are in the majority.

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396363)

"Most men have families and their wife picks up the slack at home"

Talk about sweeping judgemental statements :)

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396367)

2 words: comparative advantage. Evolution made humans sexually dimorphous because apparently the provider-protector/caregiver split was beneficial and one could argue it still is, after all the economy is all about comparative advantage and specialization.

Re:In other news... (1)

pla (258480) | about 6 months ago | (#46395947)

That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, there's a salary gap. As the linked article points out, some big factors out of this are the fact that women tend to leave their jobs more early, to have more intermittent commitments to work. The article seems quite content to leave the implication that, basically, this means that it's all the fault of women for just not caring about their career enough.

"Fault"? No. Relevant to someone's experience level and corresponding pay? Absolutely.

If a woman puts in 20 years steady, constantly learning new up-to-date skills while keeping the core skills well-honed, why the hell shouldn't she make more than some guy who started his career at the same time she did but just came back from a five year leave to raise a kid? And if she will continue to put in a solid 40+ hours a week while he spends the next decade taking 2-hour lunches to pick up the kids and can get called away by some school problem at a moment's notice, why shouldn't she get that promotion while he remains lower on the totem pole?

Oh, gee, did I mix up my genders there? Huh.

Re:In other news... (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 6 months ago | (#46396045)

It isn't legislation or litigation that changed things, it is the fundamental workforce demographics. For most families, being a "stay at home mom" isn't an option. Early legislation may have ensured that hostile workplace factors were taken out of the equation, which would have made a meaningful difference, but the balance is largely time.

As for the resulting pay gap factors, it is pretty hard for anyone who works from 22-30, takes 6 years off, works again from 36-48 half time, and then works full time for the remainder of their career to make as much as someone that works 7 years, one six month stretch off, and them for the rest of their career.

Mitigating factors to this trend are better sharing between husband and wife of the responsibilities of picking up and dropping off the kids, and the current generation that limits their work to just under 40 hours a week to ensure they have a good work/life balance.

Gender lies in society, wage gap (2)

MonsterMasher (518641) | about 6 months ago | (#46395777)

Of course anyone who has looked into the actual data has already discovered the amazing level of lies directed at the male in our society - and keeping him 2nd class. Just ask yourself - just how hard and how long did you have to work to earn your shot at reproduction.. and your sister? Did she just have to find some guy to enslave (18-24 years) .. that's the level or parity we have. Open eyes please.

Men 'earn' more. Normalized. The gap is life choice, not gender.

Actual decent information may be found at www.avoiceformen.com
The level of this is clear and disgusting. In the last year or so I have been staggering at what I realize was brain washing (that we all get! and still kids are.) otherwise this would leap out at you. Instead you will ignore and dismiss - most will.
My crazy comments here: http://www.salon.com/profile/S... [salon.com]

Re:Gender lies in society, wage gap (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 6 months ago | (#46396031)

*Sigh* This is what happens when you spend to much time living in a basement. Fermenting those sour grapes.

no gap (2)

sdinfoserv (1793266) | about 6 months ago | (#46395779)

As a manger in the tech field, I state for the record there is no pay gap. Starting pay is based on someone’s ability to negotiate and raises are based on skill. As far as a pay difference over all, a recent study says the entire pay gap is easily explained by choices of work. Women historically have selected employment that pays less. Teachers make less than engineers. The percentage of women in the teaching field is higher as is the percentage of men in the engineering field. Thus, if averaged just men vs women, men on average make more (in that example). However drawing that as a conclusion is erroneous, so people just need to get over themselves and do their best.

qz.com is a shit site (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395785)

Nothing more than a gussied up blogspam.

lots of misinformation out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395787)

A recent news article essentially compared the median income for men and women in the geographical area, and claimed that women in tech make about half what men do. That's a more obvious screw up.

But, in general, for "new hires" the salaries are at parity, and I would expect that this has been the case for the last 10-20 years

The real discrimination is in promotion practices and the slow trickle up to higher pay grades. And in some industries, your "work hours" have a very large effect on that: If you're in marketing, the more time you spend beating the streets, the more success you will have (all other things being equal); If you're a developer, the more time you spend developing, the higher the probability that you'll be associated with a successful project/product and/or be able to demonstrate your skills and develop new ones.

There is well documented evidence that women (in general) spend less time at work than men (in general), both in a day to day sense and in over years sense. For a large part, I think this is because of cultural norms (women as caregivers) more than inherent discrimination by tech companies. Sure, tech companies can reinforce it (rigid schedules, etc.), but it's a bigger cultural issue than just "evil what male overlords".

There's also a very difficult to control for effect due to the phenomenon that your salary tends to be tied to whatever you made at your first job. If you were lucky enough to get hired during a boom, with high salary, you'll have high salary for the rest of your life (until you quit, are laid off, or retire). If you were hired during a low wage period, then your salary will be low. Most companies for lack of a better strategy do a "everyone gets the same small percentage increase", and the same applies when changing jobs. Sure, there are exceptions, but when looking at mass statistics, it's "most companies" and "average toiler" that make up the population.

Rational debate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395803)

This is sure to foster some.

Fixed the Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395817)

About 15 years ago I was routinely paid 30% less than my male colleagues. There just didn't seem to be a reasonable explanation. So I started a company with another woman. Seemed to solve the problem.

Re:Fixed the Problem (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 6 months ago | (#46395853)

Your solution to being paid less than male colleagues is to eliminate the male colleagues?

Money talks (2)

BreezeDM (2887189) | about 6 months ago | (#46395849)

If I could hire females with the same qualifications, same productivity, and willing to work the same hours why would I hire a male if I could pay females 75%? We could cut payroll by 25% by just hiring women. I believe that misogyny exists, but i doubt it would be enough to increase payroll by 25%. Even the most misogynistic business owner would hire just females to save on costs. Since this isn't the case, we know women are not being paid less than their male counterparts generally.

Re:Money talks (0)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46396039)

I know I'm getting modded down for that, but assuming this misogynistic scenario, the big demotivator is maternity leave.

Nothing like surprise "I'm going away for a year and you legally can't fire me during, before, or for a while after or I'll sue your ass".

Controlling for... (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#46395863)

I was under the impression that one of the issue was that women are less likely to get offered exciting projects, overtime, etc. etc. so they wind up stuck in relatively junior positions doing limited hours.

Re:Controlling for... (3)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396027)

They get offered all that at first but company stops asking after constant rejections. Young women, at least from my personal experience, are more focused on things outside of their career. There were several female co-workers who were more talented than me but unlike them I was willing to put in more hours to deal with problems at work. Last I heard one of them now runs a Yoga studio and another went back to school for PhD.

Re:Controlling for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396085)

Having women in higher-up positions is all the rage right now. Everyone likes to be able to say "yeah, our lead engineer is a women, so you can't say we arn't inclusive!". The opportunities are there, but still, it seems like women have to be dragged into them.

I honestly think it's more that women are more content to coast. Get a decent job, go into work every day and do said job, go home to the kids, have a good work/life balance, etc. It's honestly probably a reasonable choice.

Men tend to be more ambitious, working crazy hours, pushing to get onto better projects/positions, and having almost no life as a result. In the end it's probably not worth it.

this isn't new (1, Troll)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 6 months ago | (#46395879)

Forbes and WSJ pointed this out a couple of years ago:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... [forbes.com]

If you actually look at how much work is done and actual years worked (not just age) etc. the gap disappears. Actually, according to the summary here there *is* a gap as women get paid more. I'm sure the feminists and looney lefters will want to fix this new problem. Not.

Re:this isn't new (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46396035)

The problem is that you are controlling for things that actually do matter. Why are women less likely to work long hours? Because if you have a family, it is societally expected that the wife will pick up the slack in order for the husband to work longer. Look at any "high powered" man with a family and you will find that situation. Even if the wife has a full time job, she still has to do the majority of the work at home. It is not acceptable for a woman to work more and a husband to do the house work, so there is no opportunity for them to do it (of course there are exceptions, but I am talking on the whole).

Re:this isn't new (4, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | about 6 months ago | (#46396131)

Even if the wife has a full time job, she still has to do the majority of the work at home.

Says who?

I remember when I first read about these issues, 30 years ago, one of the surveys claiming that women did the majority of work at home, counted exterior house maintenance, yard maintenance, and car maintenance as mens' hobbies instead of work at thome.

Re:this isn't new (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46396195)

Says the pigeonhole principle. If the man is working 80 hours weeks he doesn't physically have time to do the work at home. Those situations are common for men, but women cannot afford to do overtime because they don't have a safety net to take care of the work at home.

Re:this isn't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396313)

On paper, that's reasonable; in reality, it's bullocks. Even when you pull 80 hours, you're expected to get things done around the house. Indeed, regular maintenance cannot be put off without very real consequences, expectations aside.

Re:this isn't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396423)

That woman should not have picked a fucking retard selfish husband, now should she? (or perhaps its worth it for the income, but admitting that wont play into the partyline...)

In An Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395891)

The big qualifier left out of the summary - the original article describes how the wage gap has gone *in the tech sector*. The article doesn't claim equity in the economy in general. "According to the study, there are seven professions with pay equity".

What that means to me isn't that all work is done, but it does mean that we (techies) are at the forefront of that. We as an industry find ourselves in the enviable position of being a role model - something we haven't acheived lately regarding gender relations.

as a technical person (1)

fermion (181285) | about 6 months ago | (#46395925)

I would hate to be judged on my hours worked. Sometimes I am less efficient than others and have to work more hours, sometimes I am more efficient and have to work less. I have generally been salary, generally been expected to work enough to get my work done, and generally been paid for the getting work done. Now, if I were a paper pusher then the hours worked would be a good metric. If I were a check out person at walmart then the hours worked would be a good metric. But hours worked has never seemed to me a good metric for technical people, unless you are talking about the geek squad.

You guys will end up on Jezebel (2, Funny)

sandbagger (654585) | about 6 months ago | (#46395957)

You're gonna be in trouble. I'm telling.

Re:You guys will end up on Jezebel (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396135)

You're gonna be in trouble. I'm telling.

Like I'm worried about what someone says about me on a site named for a woman who was eaten by dogs.

(posting as AC because, frankly, I don't have any good reason to sign up for a /. account)

Be careful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46395987)

Making any sort of statement AT ALL that suggests men and women are treated equally these days will result in the wrath of the Social Justice Warriors! You will be required to check your privilege (can't carry it on per TSA regulations) and will be labelled as sexist scum!

Re:Be careful... (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 6 months ago | (#46396165)

I know. It's almost as repugnant as musing about new agricultural opportunities in Siberia or Canada due to global warming. These Things Are Not Discussed.

This is really simple (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 6 months ago | (#46396119)

There are a few key points to this argument. One, feminist assholes love to mess with the math to make things that aren't true seem true. They're always perpetual victims in their own minds no matter what the real math says.

Secondly, if you aren't getting paid what you want, get a different job. In fact, don't take the job in the first place. The (pretend) wage difference problem is solved!

Third, I don't get months and months free time off constantly like women do every time they get pregnant. That's why every company in the world hires a man for a job over a woman. You can't afford to lose someone for months at a time in important positions.

Re:This is really simple (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46396143)

You can get months off whenever you want for any medical condition you or your family might have. It's called FMLA and your employer is required by law to respect it. You probably won't get paid, but you can't get fired either. Maternity leave is the same in a lot of (most?) places. You can use your sick leave if you have any, but then you are taking unpaid.

At my wife's work they don't badge... (2)

fonske (1224340) | about 6 months ago | (#46396145)

She hates to be reminded of the fact that she can't be working more then 6 hours a day. Yet she has a way of making sure that all my surplus hours are carefully filled in with me doing extra tasks like grocery shopping, going to the doctor with the kids etc... She get's to appreciate both sides of the spectrum all in her advantage.

This is not news; it is also not PC (0)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 6 months ago | (#46396151)

When you control for working hours and years of experience (as opposed to simply age - women more often take time off work to raise children), there hasn't been a male/female pay gap for decades. However, this is not PC. Feminists don't want to hear that they're done, that they have long since achieved their goals, and that feminism has become counterproductive [linuxjournal.com] . Hence, the studies that show this are routinely ignored, and certainly never publicized.

Taking months or years off for child raising, or working only part time, or refusing to travel - none of these things should affect your career or your pay. It ought to be possible to drop out of the workforce at 25, raise your kids full-time for 20 years, and then rejoin the workforce as a senior manager.

It makes as much sense as the rest of the progressive agenda...

Thanks HR department! (1)

the_scoots (1595597) | about 6 months ago | (#46396171)

I guess the race to pay everyone as little as possible has leveled the pay out!

the day... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46396341)

The day I can slap my wife for mouthing off like I would any other man, I'll consider the world equal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>