Jealousy towards Westerners (from "other" Asians)

[MPhillips]

You weren't here in 2008 & 20012 for the election & re-election of US Pres. B. Obama to hear all the misogynistic comments (about his same-party female opponent) coming from both the right & left (!!!). The US is quite a bit different in this & other respects from the rest of the English-speaking world (where else do they hand a loaded Uzi to a young child who then goes ahead & shoots the firing-range's instructor, killing him?). I'd better not dwell on the subject anymore though--doesn't help my b.p. any.

[anonymoose]

Isn't the next president a woman?

[MPhillips]

I'd lay about 6 to 1 odds against it (if I were a Las Vegas bookmaker).

[studychinese]

The pay gap between men and women is explained by female career choices, not discrimination. This is one of the most well researched matters and this persistent myth has been refuted any number of times.

[renzhe]

Women often get less money than men of equal qualification for exactly the same work. The same CV gets more job offers if the female name is changed to a male one. There are numerous studies out there. 75% of women face discrimination in scientific field, compared to 12% of men.

I'm interested how these simple, commonly known facts were refuted, by whom and where.

http://www.upenn.edu/provost/images/uploads/Gender.Racial_.Bias_.pdf

In one particularly relevant study, researchers modified an actual curriculum vita so that it either contained a female or male name and sent the CV to a random sample of university psychology departments and asked faculty members to evaluate the person on a number of dimensions (Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke 1999). In one set of conditions, the CV was the version the actual applicant had previously used to get a job as a new assistant professor, and in the other conditions, the CV was the (more impressive) version she used years later as a tenure candidate. The researchers found that when the new assistant professor CV had a male name, the candidate was judged by both male and female evaluators to be worthy of hire approximately 73% of the time. When the same CV had a female name, it was rated worthy of hire approximately only 45% of the time. There were no significant gender differences in ratings of the tenure version of the vitae, although participants wrote four times as many cautionary or negative comments in the margins of their rating sheets for the female applicants, such as “We would have to see her job talk,” or “I would need to see evidence that she had gotten these grants or publications on her own.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/17/male-female-pay-gap-hasnt-moved-much-in-years/

Discrimination remains a factor, albeit one that is difficult to document and measure. Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, a libertarian think tank, said, “There’s no doubt that some level of residual discrimination exists out there.”

Meridith Pushnik, a 30-year-old web designer, said she experienced such discrimination early in her career. In 2007, Ms. Pushnik and a male friend with similar education and experience both landed jobs designing web sites and creating software applications for a Denver firm. Four years later, she learned from the colleague that he earned $20,000 more a year than she did.

Ms. Pushnik didn’t bring up the matter with her manager because company guidelines prohibited employees from discussing wages among themselves. She left in December and in March joined EffectiveUI, Inc., another Denver technology firm.

At EffectiveUI, “when we discussed pay, I got offered a really fair wage, reflective of how anyone with my experience, male or female, should be paid,” Ms. Pushnik said.

Studies show that her experience isn’t isolated. Research published last year by the American Association of University Women found a pay gap emerging one year after college. A year after graduating with engineering degrees from similarly competitive institutions, men were earning annual salaries of $55,142 and women $48,493. That translates into women earning 88 cents for every $1 men did.

Exactly the same degree and exactly the same job sounds like exactly the same career choice to me.

[MPhillips]

@studychinese-The issue of equal pay for equal work (and the lack thereof) aside (renzhe has already covered it nicely), as to women "choosing" less remunerative "careers", to what extent is it really their "choice"?

BTW, to the extent (in the US anyway) that women have been closing the pay-gap with men (and they have), it's been due to the loss of highly paid jobs in male-dominated sectors such as heavy industry, not any appreciable gains by women, in other words women aren't earning more, men are earning less.

[MPhillips]

Another point I neglected to mention--there exists a phenomenon that seems to attract little attention, namely that the exact same job with the very same duties may be given one title when performed by a woman & another when a man does it. For instance at a public school I worked for--this probably holds for all NY City public schools at the time--the men who cleaned the toilets etc. were called "janitors" and made twice as much as women with the same duties, who were officially categorized as "matrons". Thus union rules which insist on equal pay for equal work were nimbly side-stepped. I'm not sure how big this effect might be across our entire economy however as I've never seen a relevant study.

[daofeishi]

 

 

For instance at a public school I worked for--this probably holds for all NY City public schools at the time--the men who cleaned the toilets etc. were called "janitors" and made twice as much as women with the same duties, who were officially categorized as "matrons".

 

If  janitors and matrons were doing the exact same tasks but given different salaries, why hasn't a complaint been filed with the NYS Dept. of Labor or the EEOC? If what you're saying is an accurate description of the situation, it sounds like an open-and-shut case. 

[MPhillips]

I left a while back--I don't know what's going on there now. I hope things have improved.

EDIT: A case involving the equal-pay issue for which excellent documentation exists is the relatively recent one of "Dukes, et al. vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." which failed after wending its way through US courts for 10 yrs. (2001-2011). Those employed by the private sector have even less chance of winning than their civil servant counterparts, thus the necessity of shrinking the public sector.

[studychinese]

Women that never marry earn about the same amount as men in the same occupation. 

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

 

There are laws on the books supposed to protect women that makes hiring women a risky or costly proposition for employers. Here is an example -

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226157/Vogue-editor-Alexandra-Shulman-asks-boss-hire-woman.html

 

The best test for this hypothesis is for someone to go out an create an all women company that pays only 77% of the wages that other companies are paying, supposedly for people with exactly the same skill and experience set, the only difference being gender. This company would be the company with the lowest labor overhead, and have a competitive advantage. 

 

I also ask why these 'greedy corporations' are willing to literally give men free money for the same work that women do. Very generous of them, isn't it?

 

EDIT: I am pretty sure that we have been trolled by 'Kate'. She signed up specifically to harp on someone using the word 'girls', and has no other post history. Since this is topic is very far from the OP, and additionally even further away from the raison d'être of this forum, I suggest that we not feed the troll.

[Demonic_Duck]

Hey guys, look, I managed to find the one demographic of women whose pay is almost equivalent to men's in the same demographic, therefore the wage gap is a myth!

[anonymoose]

Porn actresses get paid much more than their male counterparts. So you see, it works both ways. It just depends on the industry.

[Demonic_Duck]

To be honest though, that's just another example of sexism against women. Why does that pay gap exist? Because of the stud/slut thing. A male pornstar's a "stud", a female pornstar's a "slut", hence it's a much more desirable profession for a man than a woman, so you need a much greater monetary incentive to persuade women to take it up.

 

There's also the fact that almost all porn is geared towards men's fantasies. A male pornstar gets to live out his sexual fantasies, a female pornstar gets to live out some guy's sexual fantasies. It's kinda surprising they have to even pay male pornstars at all, I'm sure plenty of guys would do it for free. I guess if it wasn't paid work they wouldn't be able to attract the best "talent", though (i.e. the guys with the biggest 小弟弟s...)

[studychinese]

Even bitcoin, something that anyone can buy, is considered discriminatory to women by some.

 

http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/03/03/cathy-reisenwitz-accuses-bitcoin-bigotry-loses-2-klout-points/

[MPhillips]

I won't click on studychinese's link to the WSJ , since Rupert Murdoch bought it the WSJ has veered a lot further right, editorial bias is now affecting the trustworthiness of the reporting to a serious extent. Nonetheless I'll just grant what studychinese purports it to demonstrate.

If women who never marry earn as much as their occupational brethren (married, divorced, never married--what have you) it might be the result of various factors, firstly they might be women who are even more devoted to their jobs than their male counterparts (married to their jobs as it were) and thus deserving of being paid in excess of what they get paid, but who nevertheless end up settling for the same pay. Secondly, it's possible that exceedingly capable, hardworking women find it difficult to attract mates, again these might be people who are more qualified than their salaries would suggest.

Thirdly, women who have children must take some amount of leave for that purpose and aren't able to work overtime as much, thus preventing their ascension of the success ladder. Unlike the much-more-likely to be progeny-less never-married daughters of Eve of whom the WSJ speaks, women with children may choose never to seek salaried positions at all, preferring to remain instead as hourly employees since a position requiring unpaid overtime might well be incompatible with their domestic responsibilities.

[studychinese]

A couple of other links then, from a dissenting feminist, because my WSJ link was deemed unacceptable (and deemed unacceptable in response to another WSJ link, sadly).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd&src_vid=LrbS537nnso&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_1710212013

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA&index=6&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd

 

In my country there is a ton of advantages to being a woman compared to being a man in employment. It gets better if you are a non-white woman. Hell, I belong to the only group of which you are able to legally discriminate against, and be lauded as a humanitarian for it.

[MPhillips]

studychinese同志：much as I might dislike the WSJ's editorial bias, for the sake of argument I did grant the premise of the article found in your link to their publication! Forgive me if I'm prying, but what country on earth is it that you come from where white men have it worse than non-white women? If and when I discover such a place exists, I promise I'll be the first person to offer you a shoulder to cry on (metaphorically speaking).

Edit: I only just noticed one of renzhe's quotes is foot-noted with a link containing the letters "wsj". I have to grant you that you were indeed countering one WSJ article with another. Of course Noam Chomsky gets most of his data (regarding the US political scene, not linguistics!) from our mainstream media, there's no denying it the US establishment press certainly does let a lot of truth slip out (that's what makes it such a wonderful propaganda tool--if it was just a total pack of lies no one would believe a single word), what Chomsky and others criticize most is the biased framing of arguments, not the out & out suppression of the truth (which happens also).

[Guest realmayo]

It's natural for women to face discrimination, because they get time off to have babies and need more time off to look after children. In general. But if there were no babies, there'd be no workers to pay for my pension when I retire. So in theory society should make sure they get paid the same. But in practice I suspect most people would fight harder to keep a male employee happy than an equally competent female one who is in between babies, and that probably explains a good chunk of the pay difference.

 

Presumably the percentage of female bus drivers and building site labourers is higher in China than in the most countries? But the proportion of children raised by their grandparents is probably much higher too.

[Demonic_Duck]

In my country there is a ton of advantages to being a woman compared to being a man in employment. It gets better if you are a non-white woman. Hell, I belong to the only group of which you are able to legally discriminate against, and be lauded as a humanitarian for it.

 

Next you'll be saying that black disabled trans people are the most priveleged of all.

 

Please tell me you're trolling.

[studychinese]

It goes along these lines in every area of employment, education, etc. Actual privilege rather than hypothetical privilege (hypothetically I am the most privileged of all).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWs