Gender egalitarianism

[Emily Lake]

The thing is it requires just about all employers to come up with the same wrong value.

It's much more likely they're right than they're all making the same mistake.

Lol. Sure... I suppose it was also much more likely that all those white men were right in assuming that black people were subhuman and that it was okay to keep them as slaves, right? And it was much more likely that all those men were right that women just weren't capable of making decisions on their own or owning property, right? And it was totally more likely that all those people were right that the sun revolved around the earth. And of course, it's totally more likely that the enormous number of people who believe in a monolithic supreme deity are totally correct. In all those cases, it's clearly much more likely that a large number of people were right rather than that they all made the same mistake.

In case you haven't picked up on it... you're far down the hole into argumentum ad populum.

 

[Emily Lake]

there's a socially driven bias that leads to the expectation that female workers are less valuable than male workers.

But is that based on misogyny or is that based on the understandable expectation that women are more likely to leave or go "mommy track"? Its not that female workers are seen as less valuable perse, but that they are seen as less likely long term prospects. Changing that means changing paternity leave to match maternity leave, changing social expectation at large regarding gender roles, and possibly changing the reality of biology itself, as women face a time limit on having babies and also often have stronger maternal instincts and interests.

I think it's neither misogyny nor rational financial decision. It's social bias. It's the expectation of what is appropriate and right behavior based on the sex of the person being evaluated. You reference it yourself - addressing it requires changing social expectations around gender roles. Yes, of course women face an expiration date if they decide they want children. But a married and monogamous man faces the same expiration date if he decides that he wants children - and it's not only women that want kids. But women are expected to take time off, or to interrupt their careers to care for children. Women are expected to take off work when their child is sick. If women do NOT take time off to care for their young children or sick children, they are considered to be 'bad mothers'. Failure to adhere to that social expectation punishes women... and adherence to that social expectation also punishes women. In addition, because of this expectation, even women who do not have children are affected by that expectation - women are promoted less quickly, in part because they 'might' decide to have kids. Women's raises lag men's because it 'might' be a 'bad investment'. This spill-over effect has impacts to women like me, who have no kids (nor ever wanted them). Because it's perceived as a risk that I 'might' want to be a mommy... and if I'm going to be a 'good' mommy, that means I limit my hours or drop my career. And even though none of that ever materialized... the fact that I am female means that it might have... so I end up being preemptively punished for a potentiality.

Motherhood and expectations or suspicions of future motherhood explain the gender pay gap. If your goal is gender parity and equal outcomes (and why should it be?) then this is where you should focus your attention. Get nurseries into offices, get public funding for daycare, etc:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/gender-pay-gap-motherhood-everything-else-just-noise/

I agree with the suggestion - in-office nursery care, better or subsidized pricing for daycare, and similar.

I will disagree that I want equal outcomes - I don't expect that to be the case. I do, however, want equal opportunity... and that includes not preemtively dinging people for 'suspicions of future motherhood'.

BTW, those expectations and suspicions of future behavior are also why black people are pulled over more often. Those expectations and suspicions without evidence, based on stereotypes and social bias, are a problem if the objective is equal opportunity. They are a barrier that is incredibly difficult to overcome.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I will disagree that I want equal outcomes - I don't expect that to be the case. I do, however, want equal opportunity... and that includes not preemtively dinging people for 'suspicions of future motherhood'.

BTW, those expectations and suspicions of future behavior are also why black people are pulled over more often. Those expectations and suspicions without evidence, based on stereotypes and social bias, are a problem if the objective is equal opportunity. They are a barrier that is incredibly difficult to overcome.

I completely agree with this. It is identity politics in action. Suspicion of behaviour or other judgment based on assigned group identity due to a particular shared characteristic. It is also why women are presumed better parents, white people are presumed racists, MRAs are presumed misogynists, black people are presumed underprivileged, etc. We need to get people looking at individuals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's like the reasons employers evaluate them as more expensive are going in one ear and out the other. You're not addressing the issues at all, just screaming discrimination.

First, you keep dodging my questions.
Second, you're making broad and unsupported assumptions about the reason for discrepancies.
Third, I have not claimed discrimination - I've been fairly careful to discuss social bias, not discrimination... and I have certainly not been "screaming" it.

Showing a question is based on a false premise negates any reason to answer it.

If it is social bias rather than discrimination then there's no reason to expect the companies to do anything about it. That's not their job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is it requires just about all employers to come up with the same wrong value.

It's much more likely they're right than they're all making the same mistake.

Lol. Sure... I suppose it was also much more likely that all those white men were right in assuming that black people were subhuman and that it was okay to keep them as slaves, right? And it was much more likely that all those men were right that women just weren't capable of making decisions on their own or owning property, right? And it was totally more likely that all those people were right that the sun revolved around the earth. And of course, it's totally more likely that the enormous number of people who believe in a monolithic supreme deity are totally correct. In all those cases, it's clearly much more likely that a large number of people were right rather than that they all made the same mistake.

In case you haven't picked up on it... you're far down the hole into argumentum ad populum.

In the time you are talking about there were social costs to hiring a black for a good position. Even if you considered them a better deal from the standpoint of work obtained you also had to consider the cost in customers who left. That is no longer an issue, employers have no reason not to make an honest evaluation of costs & benefits. (This does not say that there might not be illegal factors in their decision, though. Observe: Favoring H1-Bs over Americans. Observe: Age discrimination due to insurance costs. Observe: Age discrimination due to desiring to abuse overtime for those in exempt fields.)

 

[Emily Lake]

It's like the reasons employers evaluate them as more expensive are going in one ear and out the other. You're not addressing the issues at all, just screaming discrimination.

First, you keep dodging my questions.
Second, you're making broad and unsupported assumptions about the reason for discrepancies.
Third, I have not claimed discrimination - I've been fairly careful to discuss social bias, not discrimination... and I have certainly not been "screaming" it.

Showing a question is based on a false premise negates any reason to answer it.

If it is social bias rather than discrimination then there's no reason to expect the companies to do anything about it. That's not their job.

Whose job do you think it is to do something about it?

 

[Emily Lake]

In the time you are talking about there were social costs to hiring a black for a good position. Even if you considered them a better deal from the standpoint of work obtained you also had to consider the cost in customers who left. That is no longer an issue, employers have no reason not to make an honest evaluation of costs & benefits. (This does not say that there might not be illegal factors in their decision, though. Observe: Favoring H1-Bs over Americans. Observe: Age discrimination due to insurance costs. Observe: Age discrimination due to desiring to abuse overtime for those in exempt fields.)

How is an "honest evaluation of costs & benefits" being made when Howard is preferred over Heidi, despite them being the exact same resume, job history, and case study? How is it an "honest evaluation of costs & benefits" when the male applicant for a STEM graduate assistance position is offered a higher salary and is considered easier to get along with a better leader than the female applicant despite them being the exact same CV?

FFS, how do you think it's an "honest evaluation of costs & benefits" when men and women are measured against different standards using different yardsticks?


ETA: And seriously, WHY was there a social cost to hiring "a black"? WHY? Oh yeah... because they were BELIEVED by A LOT OF PEOPLE to be less than fully human and not as good as white people. Yeah, again - A LOT OF PEOPLE can be wrong a lot of the time.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think it's neither misogyny nor rational financial decision. It's social bias.

As I wrote in my first reply to your post, yes social bias and identity politics is the biggest part of this, but here (unlike with racist social biases) biology actually does play a role, in putting a restriction on women than men don't have, being the biological clock. Men can have babies late into life. Women can't, or its very dangerous for them to. People may also suspect a man who knows he's going infertile soon to go "daddy track" as they do women to go "mommy track".

 

[Emily Lake]

I think it's neither misogyny nor rational financial decision. It's social bias.

As I wrote in my first reply to your post, yes social bias and identity politics is the biggest part of this, but here (unlike with racist social biases) biology actually does play a role, in putting a restriction on women than men don't have, being the biological clock. Men can have babies late into life. Women can't, or its very dangerous for them to. People may also suspect a man who knows he's going infertile soon to go "daddy track" as they do women to go "mommy track".

Of course there's a biological component... but there's no longer any need for that biological component to dictate gender roles. Just as there is a biological component to our flight-or-fight reflex, but there's no longer a need for that to dictate our interpersonal relationships. Or, at the risk of getting someone's dander up... there's a biological component to men being attracted to barely-pubescent girls who have reached menarche but haven't yet attained full sexual maturity... but there's no longer any need for that biological drive to dictate that 13 and 14 year old girls are ready for breeding

And as I've previously said, a woman's biological clock affects men too. On the whole, we live in monogamous societies. So while a man can technically father children very late in life, in reality his opportunity to do so is bounded by his spouse's ability to conceive. So unless you believe that women much more strongly desire to pass on their genetic material than men do, I think the argument from biology here is an unintentional distraction.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And as I've previously said, a woman's biological clock affects men too. On the whole, we live in monogamous societies. So while a man can technically father children very late in life, in reality his opportunity to do so is bounded by his spouse's ability to conceive.

I'm not so sure about that. I see men in their 40s, 50s, even 60s having kids with wives considerably younger than themselves. I may even be one of them. In fact most couples I know have a male older than the female by at least a couple of years and I haven't seen the reverse often. Is that just my perception? I haven't seen the actual data on it.

So unless you believe that women much more strongly desire to pass on their genetic material than men do

On average (again average! So its unfair to individual women) women do want to have babies more than men do. We see men abandoning babies (deadbeat dads) far more frequently than women do.

 

[Emily Lake]

And as I've previously said, a woman's biological clock affects men too. On the whole, we live in monogamous societies. So while a man can technically father children very late in life, in reality his opportunity to do so is bounded by his spouse's ability to conceive.

I'm not so sure about that. I see men in their 40s, 50s, even 60s having kids with wives considerably younger than themselves. I may even be one of them. In fact most couples I know have a male older than the female by at least a couple of years and I haven't seen the reverse often. Is that just my perception? I haven't seen the actual data on it.

A couple of years? That still leaves the older man subject to the biological clock of his spouse. For a 60 year old to be fathering children, you're talking about a 20 to 30 year age difference... which I don't think is particularly common. I also don't have data on it... but my impression based on people I know and work with, is that the average difference in age is within 3 or 4 years. Although it does seem to almost always be an older male and a younger female. Again, I think that's social bias - a guy marrying and starting a family with an older woman is scorned and faces criticism and judgment from other men.

Unless you're implying that men frequently "trade in for a younger model"?

So unless you believe that women much more strongly desire to pass on their genetic material than men do

On average (again average! So its unfair to individual women) women do want to have babies more than men do. We see men abandoning babies (deadbeat dads) far more frequently than women do.

I don't think that's a reflection of women wanting children more than men. I think it's more a reflection of men having the freedom to abandon their babies and leave them with the women.. who are socially expected to care for those children or risk being considered "bad mommies" which carries far more social stigma than being a deadbeat dad.

Think about it. If a male abandons his partner and children, we frown a bit and consider him "just another deadbeat dad". We all acknowledge that it's not okay... but we're not surprised by it, it's not news, it's not even noteworthy. If a female abandons her partner and children, we react quite differently. There's something seriously wrong with her, she's a bad person, and it's the topic of discussion and gossip. The female faces a much higher level of shaming and ostracism than the man does.

There's an expectation that men might abandon their families, and there's an expectation that women will put their careers and lives on hold to make sure their children are cared for. And socially speaking, not conforming to expectation carries a really high price.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Showing a question is based on a false premise negates any reason to answer it.

If it is social bias rather than discrimination then there's no reason to expect the companies to do anything about it. That's not their job.

Whose job do you think it is to do something about it?

The government's, through education. It's going to be a slow process. There's no reason to simply hand business the bill when there isn't really anything they can do about it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's the actual problem.