Can we quit pretending women are being discriminated against?

[Metaphor]

More from Payscale the article:

the uncontrolled gender pay gap would persist as higher paying positions are still disproportionately accessible to men compared to women.

More unevidenced assertions, you mean. What does 'disproportionately accessible' mean, and how did Payscale measure it?

Women of color can face increased barriers in opportunity as gender and racial biases can intermix to create obstacles to hiring, pay raises, referrals, promotions, and leadership.

ANd no, the promotions do not add up. Not sure where you got that, but your article does not say it.

What? What do you mean 'the promotions do not add up'?

I said when men and women apply for promotions, women are more likely to be selected. That wasn't in the article, that's separate research.

And even when they do get the promotion, they don’t get the pay.

Women are paid less than men as they move up the corporate ladder​

Payscale’s gender pay gap research shows that even when women make it to the top rungs, they make less than their male counterparts. Women are also underrepresented in leadership roles, which can reinforce ideas that women do not make good leaders. This is why diversity in leadership is important alongside equity.

Women of every job level (individual contributors, managers, directors, and senior executives) make less than men of the comparative job level, but the gender pay gap widens as women progress up the corporate ladder. Women at the executive level make $0.95 to every dollar a man makes even when the same job characteristics are controlled for. In the uncontrolled group, women executives make $0.73 to every dollar a male executive makes. This is an improvement of $0.03 since last year in the uncontrolled group and $0.01 in the controlled group, which still isn’t much to cheer about.

And there are a million unobserved variables that are not controlled for. The controlled gender pay gap, if these unobserved variables were included, could in fact favour women over men.

Nice use of hyperbole and speculation to fill in where data does not support your preferred interpretation.

And the people speculating that any controlled and uncontrolled gap is due to discrimination against women?

 

[Metaphor]

Read your article.

I've read it more than once, and understood it better than you have, I imagine.

Nothing that you’ve written supports that assertion.

I so look forward to your critiques.*

*The above sentence is counterfactual.

 

[Hermit]

I said when men and women apply for promotions, women are more likely to be selected. That wasn't in the article, that's separate research.

There are a number of reasons why not as many women apply for promotions, one of them being that except for the healthcare and education sectors fewer women are in the workforce than men. Even when that is not the case, the percentage of women decreases further up the ladder.

Another oft mentioned reason is that women keep getting pregnant, which means time off for raising children. Do tell me why this work is not shared on a 50/50 basis.

Also, show us your research proving that women are more likely to be selected for promotion when everything else is equal.

 

[Metaphor]

Another oft mentioned reason is that women keep getting pregnant, which means time off for raising children. Do tell me why this work is not shared on a 50/50 basis.

I'm sorry your education has let you down, but men cannot get pregnant. I am afraid 100% of pregnancies will continue to fall on to women's shoulders (well, in their wombs).

As for why the work of raising children is not shared 50/50, if it is not, is there some reason why it ought be? Do you often interfere in the lives of couples or singles with children, deciding how it is best they arrange their affairs? I don't have children but I've generally found it to be the case that people don't like to be told how to raise their children.

Also, show us your research proving that women are more likely to be selected for promotion when everything else is equal.

https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting

When women and minority candidates were identifiable as women and ethnic minorities, they were more likely to be recommended for promotion. The authors call this 'positive discrimination' rather than 'anti-male discrimination' or 'anti-white' discrimination. The authors also caution against the use of blind promotion processes, presumably because they want women and ethnic minorities to continue to receive 'positive' discrimination.

I also know that in a previous workplace I worked in, a very large review of hiring and promotion decisions was undertaken (by an external research firm). The results found that women were more likely to be successful at obtaining promotions (e.g. something like 40% of men, but 45% of women, were selected for promotion when they put in an application). I can't link you to that review as it was internal research. At the time, the workplace was desperate to attain and maintain 'gender parity' in its workforce composition.

 

[Hermit]

Another oft mentioned reason is that women keep getting pregnant, which means time off for raising children. Do tell me why this work is not shared on a 50/50 basis.

I'm sorry your education has let you down, but men cannot get pregnant. I am afraid 100% of pregnancies will continue to fall on to women's shoulders (well, in their wombs).

As for why the work of raising children is not shared 50/50, if it is not, is there some reason why it ought be?

Fairness

Do you often interfere in the lives of couples or singles with children, deciding how it is best they arrange their affairs? I don't have children but I've generally found it to be the case that people don't like to be told how to raise their children.

Nice bit of well-poisoning. In my opinion it is a good thing to point out if something is unfair and encourage fairness. You obviously disagree.

Also, show us your research proving that women are more likely to be selected for promotion when everything else is equal.

https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting

When women and minority candidates were identifiable as women and ethnic minorities, they were more likely to be recommended for promotion.

And yet, the authors of the study pointedly remark that

Women are under-represented in management and executive level positions across the private and public sectors. In 2016, women comprised 59.0% of the APS, but accounted for 48.9% of its executive level officers and only 42.9% of its Senior Executive Service (SES) officers.

Why, do you think that might be the case? Here is a hint: Reviewing job applications is just one of several steps in deciding who gets a job and who gets a promotion. The study you think confirms your assertion that

When men and women apply for promotions, women are more likely to be promoted.

does no such thing. It merely points out that women are marginally advantaged (+2.9%) at the stage where job applications are reviewed. The hurdles women face are located at the subsequent stages of the process - interviewing applicants and merit listings.

 

[Metaphor]

Another oft mentioned reason is that women keep getting pregnant, which means time off for raising children. Do tell me why this work is not shared on a 50/50 basis.

I'm sorry your education has let you down, but men cannot get pregnant. I am afraid 100% of pregnancies will continue to fall on to women's shoulders (well, in their wombs).

Biological facts are wild, ain't they?

As for why the work of raising children is not shared 50/50, if it is not, is there some reason why it ought be?

Fairness

Why would some arrangement other than 50/50 be 'unfair'?

Do you often interfere in the lives of couples or singles with children, deciding how it is best they arrange their affairs? I don't have children but I've generally found it to be the case that people don't like to be told how to raise their children.

Nice bit of well-poisoning. In my opinion it is a good thing to point out if something is unfair and encourage fairness. You obviously disagree.

You're not pointing out something is unfair. You are airing your assessment of fairness, and you are assuming your assessment is as important as the decisions people have made for themselves.

By your choked logic, any household where income is not equally earned by the householders is 'unfair'. All those men and women earning less than their partners are responsible for the unfairness.

Also, show us your research proving that women are more likely to be selected for promotion when everything else is equal.

https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting

When women and minority candidates were identifiable as women and ethnic minorities, they were more likely to be recommended for promotion.

And yet, the authors of the study pointedly remark that

Women are under-represented in management and executive level positions across the private and public sectors. In 2016, women comprised 59.0% of the APS, but accounted for 48.9% of its executive level officers and only 42.9% of its Senior Executive Service (SES) officers.

Why, do you think that might be the case?

Because women don't pursue these roles at the same rate that men do, and women have more flexibility in their labour market attachment than men do.

Here is a hint: Reviewing job applications is just one of several steps in deciding who gets a job and who gets a promotion. The study you think confirms your assertion that

When men and women apply for promotions, women are more likely to be promoted.

does no such thing. It merely points out that women are marginally advantaged (+2.9%)

That is not marginal. It's huge and significant, and if men had a 2.9 per cent bias towards them there would be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

at the stage where job applications are reviewed. The hurdles women face are located at the subsequent stages of the process - interviewing applicants and merit listings.

I know exactly what is involved in interviewing and merit listing. I have seen both sides of the process. I've been on merit lists and I've helped create them.

I know that the Australian Public Service actively discriminates against male candidates, especially if the candidate is in an area that has a high proportion of men.