Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Evidence of unjustified gender pay gap Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Impressive)
    Some of them do. Even my teacher said so. I literally died back then because I wasn't exactly sure whether it was true or not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    dam even i don't know what's happening anymore, everything and all sources are so twisted and everywhere i don't know, i just don't know
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here's some evidence for you. Even in a career like medicine, in which you would expect pay scales to be regulated and as fair as possible. It's much worse in many other sectors, although much harder to obtain clear, "credible evidence" when pay scales aren't as structured.

    http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...he_same_job%3F

    "By controlling for factors such as part time working, maternity leave, and fewer years of experience, the BMA found a “true” gender pay gap among consultants of 5.6%, equating to £5500 a year"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    I would like to see some credible evidence that the so-called gender pay gap is the result of sexist attitudes.
    A portion of the gender pay gap, even when other factors are controlled for, still exists. Various studies and reports have found that there is still a pay gap of 5-7% that is still unaccounted for, and given that there is experimental evidence that employers often do discriminate against women, perhaps unconsciously, there may be a discriminatory element to the gender pay gap.

    For example, in one study, identical applications put forward to high-priced restaurants by identical pseudo-identities demonstrated that even then, the employers were much more likely to offer interviews and jobs to men. In addition, another study found that the probability that women would advance and be hired by symphony orchestras was higher when the employers did not know that they were women than when they did.

    It's also worth noting that studies can try to control for so many things that they end up controlling for the thing they're actually trying to measure. Yes, women may, on average, work shorter hours, and this explains some of the pay gap, but some feminists will argue that this is because of societal attitudes that tell them that they need to be housekeeping instead of in work, for instance. As one study concluded, even when controlling for relevant factors: "there is a strong possibility that discrimination is embedded not only in the policies, processes and systems of the occupational structure, but also within factors associated in the past with the acquisition of education, training and work experience."

    So, overall, I think that there probably is a (small) discriminatory component to the pay gap, and that this should be sorted. I also think that there may still be attitudes towards women that have to change. The gap is not a myth, but it's also not as large as some feminists claim.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ser00)
    Here's some evidence for you. Even in a career like medicine, in which you would expect pay scales to be regulated and as fair as possible. It's much worse in many other sectors, although much harder to obtain clear, "credible evidence" when pay scales aren't as structured.

    http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...he_same_job%3F

    "By controlling for factors such as part time working, maternity leave, and fewer years of experience, the BMA found a “true” gender pay gap among consultants of 5.6%, equating to £5500 a year"
    But that still doesn't suggest discrimination. The NHS has clearly defined pay scales, so the article is saying that the differences are due to additional "non-NHS" working, which it is entirely possible that women are less likely to get involved with.

    Eg from the article:

    "One factor contributing to this “unexplained” gap could be that women often focus all of their professional attention on caring for patients and running services, Davies says. This allows them less time to take part in extra activities that might boost their careers, such as networking with peers, attending international conferences, or joining committees.

    “A lot of women will be consultants working very hard for the service; they won’t necessarily be the people on the train up to London to sit on royal college committees. And it’s those things that I think are in the unexplained group. [If you’re on a committee] you get seen as a ‘good chap’ and the next time you’re applying for royal college backing or a CEA [clinical excellence award] to increase your salary they’ll think, ‘Oh he’s that nice chap who sits on that committee.’ I think these unexplained bits are intangible. People tend to promote, sponsor, and reward people who are like them.”


    I also think it's disturbingly sexist that the article think it's fine when men are underrepresented as medical students, but wrong when women are underrepresented in academic medicine, for example. You can't have it both ways.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    I also think it's disturbingly sexist that the article think it's fine when men are underrepresented as medical students, but wrong when women are underrepresented in academic medicine, for example. You can't have it both ways.
    I wonder what you think about this.

    I've seen it suggested in various places, e.g. here, that this might be bad news.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ser00)
    Here's some evidence for you. Even in a career like medicine, in which you would expect pay scales to be regulated and as fair as possible. It's much worse in many other sectors, although much harder to obtain clear, "credible evidence" when pay scales aren't as structured.

    http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...he_same_job%3F

    "By controlling for factors such as part time working, maternity leave, and fewer years of experience, the BMA found a “true” gender pay gap among consultants of 5.6%, equating to £5500 a year"
    But did that study control for more male consultants than female consultants saying "unless you give me an extra point on the pay spine I'm going to bugger off and work for the NHS trust down the road"?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    A portion of the gender pay gap, even when other factors are controlled for, still exists. Various studies and reports have found that there is still a pay gap of 5-7% that is still unaccounted for, and given that there is experimental evidence that employers often do discriminate against women, perhaps unconsciously, there may be a discriminatory element to the gender pay gap.

    For example, in one study, identical applications put forward to high-priced restaurants by identical pseudo-identities demonstrated that even then, the employers were much more likely to offer interviews and jobs to men. In addition, another study found that the probability that women would advance and be hired by symphony orchestras was higher when the employers did not know that they were women than when they did.

    It's also worth noting that studies can try to control for so many things that they end up controlling for the thing they're actually trying to measure. Yes, women may, on average, work shorter hours, and this explains some of the pay gap, but some feminists will argue that this is because of societal attitudes that tell them that they need to be housekeeping instead of in work, for instance. As one study concluded, even when controlling for relevant factors: "there is a strong possibility that discrimination is embedded not only in the policies, processes and systems of the occupational structure, but also within factors associated in the past with the acquisition of education, training and work experience."

    So, overall, I think that there probably is a (small) discriminatory component to the pay gap, and that this should be sorted. I also think that there may still be attitudes towards women that have to change. The gap is not a myth, but it's also not as large as some feminists claim.
    I do see your point, and agree to some parts of it, but the first two studies you mentioned appear to be showing a possible discrimination when candidates of either sexes are applying for jobs. It does not highlight a gender pay gap, per se. A gender pay gap would imply women were paid less for the same work as men. Those studies just highlighted that women were less likely to be employed in some areas, due to some forms of discrimination (and just like that study showed, it's not a malicious or purposeful discrimination, but more likely one resulted from the employer's taste and from occupational segregation of either sexes in general).

    The third (conclusive) study you added, I would argue, is a bit obscure in its aim. It highlights issues such as human capital and some elements of discrimination and occupational segregation, but again, the latter are not job specific. They show that women are less likely to get some jobs, or that they are likely to get some specific jobs that pay less, but not that women are being paid less for the same job than men, for the same amount of hours or type.

    I think the answer to the OP is more complex than just a simple yes or a no. I personally cringe when this issue is taken at a national level. It should be narrowed down to the same job and hourly pay. If a woman is paid less per hour of work for the same role at the same company, for the same manual labour and overall energy invested as the man, then yes, there is a gender pay gap as a result of sexist attitudes. If not, then there's simply not enough evidence, or not concrete enough evidence to substantiate this claim. I currently maintain the latter.

    I do believe that there are some forms of discrimination when employing women or men for the same job, by which I mean, giving the job, not paying the job. As the studies you added have shown, there is an element of taste discrimination from employers, but I regard this as being more natural than malicious. The employer will pay his/her employees at the end of the day, so he/she has the right to select who to hire, based on who can fulfill his/her requirements better. I do also agree, in part, with the claim of job segregation, but again I see this as a natural thing, not detrimental to any sex in particular. A greater deal of women will be better at doing certain jobs (such as care-taking, retail or whatever) in the same way that a greater deal of men will be better at doing some other jobs (construction, etc) than women. I would like to note that I am referring to numbers, not a general attribution of sexes to specific roles. The fact that women are generally working in care-taking does not deny/exclude the fact that there are some women who will be taking jobs in which males dominate in numbers. Vice-versa applies to everything that I've said so far. You will also find males discriminated in such ways for some roles (in which females will dominate in numbers). Also, with regard to the third study, I do not like how they concluded that women are crammed in low earning occupations, compared to men. In the same way sales assistants/checkout operators have a female share of 74% (page 3), I'm curious what's the male share in sewage operations, which would arguably pay less. They're comparing apples and pears there.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Single women that have never had kids and are aged between 18 and 32 earn 8% more than men in the same category. Funny enough you don't hear that in the press.

    As an aside, supermarkets employ mainly women, by some margin and they employ them in all roles, from the cleaner to the general manager. A while back I read an article complaining how few managers were women.
    One role you will never see a woman doing is out in all weather's collecting the trollies. Why would that be? Funny nobody is complaining about men grabbing all the trolley jobs.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ser00)
    Here's some evidence for you. Even in a career like medicine, in which you would expect pay scales to be regulated and as fair as possible. It's much worse in many other sectors, although much harder to obtain clear, "credible evidence" when pay scales aren't as structured.

    http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...he_same_job%3F

    "By controlling for factors such as part time working, maternity leave, and fewer years of experience, the BMA found a “true” gender pay gap among consultants of 5.6%, equating to £5500 a year"
    It depends on how thorough they are.
    A similar study came out in America some time ago showing female surgeons earned less than male surgeons, implying heavily (they don't often come outright and say it) that it was down to sexism and the dreaded patriachy. It was only when Feminist Christina Hoff Summers sent off for the raw data, at some cost, and took the time to drill down into it that she discovered that the full time male surgeaons worked on average 300 hrs a year more than female surgeons.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Single women that have never had kids and are aged between 18 and 32 earn 8% more than men in the same category. Funny enough you don't hear that in the press.

    As an aside, supermarkets employ mainly women, by some margin and they employ them in all roles, from the cleaner to the general manager. A while back I read an article complaining how few managers were women.
    One role you will never see a woman doing is out in all weather's collecting the trollies. Why would that be? Funny nobody is complaining about men grabbing all the trolley jobs.
    It only ever matters to the public if it's women who are "disadvantaged". The double standards of society amazes me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I feel like a stuck record when I say: "The wage gap is just an average of all full time working men and women's salaries and is not representative of what they earn individually in each job, nor is it evidence of unlawful pay discrimination."

    As for the studies showing women being offered less money when applying for jobs, I wonder how many times they had to repeat this until they found something 'worth' publishing. Yeah, don't put it past these people; I've seen it happen before in academia.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I feel like a stuck record when I say: "The wage gap is just an average of all full time working men and women's salaries and is not representative of what they earn individually in each job, nor is it evidence of unlawful pay discrimination."

    As for the studies showing women being offered less money when applying for jobs, I wonder how many times they had to repeat this until they found something 'worth' publishing. Yeah, don't put it past these people; I've seen it happen before in academia.
    Link?
    Otherwise you are doing what you are accusing them of and just end up looking like you are impersonating The Little Lebowski.
    "Yeh but.....that's just like....your opinion man.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.