International Men's Day is apparently controversial

[Belz...]

See the Sony email leak re Jennifer Lawrence's pay.

How about Scarlet Johansson's pay? I'd like to point out that actors are not exactly paid by the hour, and it's difficult to reach a conclusion based on anecdotes. Maybe she just isn't seen by her employers as as much of a draw as what she thinks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's some random things from memory. Some of these are mentioned earlier in the thread

-suicide rates
-prison sentences (for the same crimes) compared to women
-job satisfaction
-minority position in a variety of jobs (such as nursing) - personally I don't see this as a problem but it's worth bringing up whenever someone says there "aren't enough women in position X" to see if they agree
-the whole circumcision thing
-off the top of my head I bet there are almost zero non-athletic scholarships geared toward solely men for a field in which they are a minority (again I don't see this as a problem on it's own but it's a double standard)

So men want what, more counseling?

Not sure about "the same crimes" but just like child custody, I'll give you that one.

Job satisfaction? Sorry, that sounds like padding the list. Feel free to post a citation explaining further how that is men getting an unequal deal.

Men in nursing not only are NOT discriminated against, they get promoted faster and paid more than female nurses. You need to check your facts there.

Male circumcision is not a gender discrimination issue. I could say women suffer more complications in pregnancy if you want a tit for tat medical list by gender.

You want to claim men are disadvantaged in sports scholarships?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

NZ one

Free breast scans for women

Blokes have to pay for prostate testing

I thought NZ had a national health service?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...In other words, getting more women in a board rooms is somehow an important issue, but male suicide isn't....

That's taking two arbitrary things and saying one is taking away funding and attention from the other. I saw it in the argument we shouldn't give any support to refugees while there were homeless people here. But there are thousands of government programs we waste money on, so why single out refugees?

Why should universities promote research in biology and not on male suicide?
Why should universities advertise sports events and not the problem of male suicide?

It's a specious argument.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems that feminism, or at least the third-wave incarnation of it, wholly focuses on the men at the top and ignores the vast majority of men who are in the middle or at the bottom.

You can see this in the steady shout for more women in politics, corporate boardrooms, and STEM*. These are all high-status positions; what is rarely, if ever, seen is a shout for more women in low-status or working class/blue collar jobs, many of which can be categorized as 'dangerous, difficult, or dirty.' Gender equality is, apparently, far less important in them.

Here is what is rarely, if ever, said:

We need more women as crane and tower operators! (99.8% maie)
We need more women bus and truck mechanics and as diesel engine specialists! (99.7% male)
We need more women in roofing! (99.5% male)
We need more women as brickmasons, blockmasons, and stone masons! (99.3% male)
We need more women as heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers! (98.8% male)
We need more women in tool and die making! (98.7% male)
We need more women in mining machine operation! (98.5% male)
We need more women as pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters! (98.4% male)
We need more women as structural iron and steel workers! (98.0% male)
We need more women in electrical power-line installation and repair! (97.0% male)
We need more women in pest control! (96.3% male)
We need more women in water and wastewater treatment plant and system operation! (95.5% male)
We need more women in logging! (94.6% male)
We need more women in refuse and recyclable materials collection! (91.4% male)

Moreover, you also don't see much said about those industries where women currently dominate. So you rarely, if ever, see the following stated:

We need fewer women as speech-language pathologists! (98.4% female)
We need fewer women in preschool and kindergarten teaching! (97.2% female)
We need fewer women in childcare! (95.5% female)
We need fewer women as dietitians and nutritionists! (92.4% female)
We need fewer women as nurse practitioners! (91.5% female)
We need fewer women as teaching assistants! (90.3% female)
We need fewer women as bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks! (90.2% female)
We need fewer women as paralegals and legal assistants! (87.3% female)
We need fewer women as librarians! (84.8% female)

And so on, for both lists. (The data for the above lists is from the US Department of Labor for 2014. Here's the PDF for 'nontraditional (male-dominated) occupations, and here's the PDF for 'traditional (female-dominated) occupations.)

*A further complication with STEM jobs is that at the same time there is a rallying cry for more women in STEM, one can find numerous articles which paint STEM as an environment filled with sexism and misogyny. Such 'scare' articles only dissuade women from entering STEM fields, thus perpetuating the supposed problem and the consequent cries to solve it.

What your analysis leaves out is a very important question: how many of those women taking the primary childcare role want that role?

Women would welcome with open arms more men in traditionally women's fields because we know it would mean those professions would move higher up the pay-value scale.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the files of shooting fish in a barrel:

Male Nurses Make More Money

More Men Becoming Nurses—With Higher Pay

Male nurses overtake females on career ladder

There Will Be More Male Nurses; They’ll Still Get Paid More

When you've been discriminated against half your working career, it isn't just an anecdote.

 

[cullennz]

I thought NZ had a national health service?

Yeah we do.

Prostrate exams just aren't covered

 

[Corsair 115]

I can assure you that the Building Trades are all constantly saying that they need more women in their ranks.

Perhaps when the (third wave) feminists en masse decide to press for it the same way they have in regards to politicians, corporate boardrooms, and STEM then there'll be a change. (From what I understand, there are several countries which have or are contemplating laws stating that businesses above a certain size must have a certain percentage of their corporate executive management be women.)

 

[Corsair 115]

Are you asking how many working women prefer to juggle work and childcare because they think that's the ideal situation? Or are you asking how many women settle for doing that because they lack better options?

'Tis an important distinction, is it not?

Women would welcome with open arms more men in traditionally women's fields because we know it would mean those professions would move higher up the pay-value scale.

Is there any reputable evidence to support your thesis? How is the mere presence of males in an industry connected to pay? What effect does the free market and capitalism have on the rate of pay for various industries? What about individual education and experience?

The average salary of an NHL player is a fair amount below the average salary of an MLB player. Are NHL players the victims of wage discrimination as a result? Or does economics explain the difference?

 

[Corsair 115]

From the files of shooting fish in a barrel:

Male Nurses Make More Money

Looking at your first citation, I notice an important factor is missing from the article's analysis: the actual number of hours worked by the male nurses as opposed to the female nurses. The only reference to hours worked is this:

The difference in earnings is partly due to the fact that men were more likely than women to work full-time. When looking only at full-time, year-round workers, the gap narrows, but it doesn’t disappear; female nurses working full-time, year-round earned 9% less than their male counterparts.

So, straight away, part of the earnings difference is due to male nurses working more hours. But, one might argue, that is followed up by a reference to "full time" workers, with the assumption being the hours worked is thus comparable.

That is not a safe assumption. "Full-time" does not automatically mean the same number of hours worked.

If we look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it defines 'full time' as 35 or more hours per week. Here is the BLS data for hours worked for 2014. The important data here is the breakdown of these 'full time' hours, shown below. (All figures are in thousands; percentages of the total are in parentheses.)

Non-agricultural industries
Full time, 35+ hours: 104,806 (100.0%)
35-39 hours: 9,397 (9.0%)
40 hours: 60,647 (57.9%)
41-48 hours: 12,079 (11.5%)
49-59 hours: 13,518 (12.9%)
60+ hours: 9,166 (8.7%)

There is a considerable distribution of hours worked amongst 'full time' workers. Just under 58% of all 'full time' workers have the standard 40-hour work week; nearly one-third (33.1%) of 'full time' workers work more than 40 hours a week, with over one in five working 49 or more hours, and one in eleven working 60 or more hours per week.

Thus, simply having a comparison of 'full time' workers does not necessarily means the hours are comparable.

What the linked BLS web site does not offer, interestingly, is a breakdown of the hours worked by gender. While the site does break down other data into men and women, hours worked is aggregated. It would be interesting indeed to see how the 'full time' hours worked look for men and women separately.

 

[Belz...]

(From what I understand, there are several countries which have or are contemplating laws stating that businesses above a certain size must have a certain percentage of their corporate executive management be women.)

Yeah because why would we want management to represent the people who want to be in management? Nope, we want them to represent the proportion of women in the general population!

 

[Corsair 115]

Yeah because why would we want management to represent the people who want to be in management? Nope, we want them to represent the proportion of women in the general population!

I saw the data somewhere, though I didn't save it unfortunately. In the mining industry, women form a greater percentage of management positions than they do in the labour positions. Thus, arguably, they are over represented in management as compared to their efforts in non-management participation.

 

[cullennz]

I saw the data somewhere, though I didn't save it unfortunately. In the mining industry, women form a greater percentage of management positions than they do in the labour positions. Thus, arguably, they are over represented in management as compared to their efforts in non-management participation.

There are thousands of HR departments round the world that would be lucky to have the odd bloke.

And then they tend to hire gay dudes. Not sure if that is feeling threatened or something

 

[Meadmaker]

Women would welcome with open arms more men in traditionally women's fields because we know it would mean those professions would move higher up the pay-value scale.

I think this confuses cart and horse.

Men follow the money. They go to high paying jobs, even if they hate those jobs.

If you start paying day care workers as much as you pay loggers, there will be more male day care workers. But why would you pay day care workers that much, when there are people (i.e. women) who will do the job for less?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah we do.

Prostrate exams just aren't covered

That's dumb.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looking at your first citation, I notice an important factor is missing from the article's analysis: the actual number of hours worked by the male nurses as opposed to the female nurses. The only reference to hours worked is this:...

Oh for pity's sake, give up with the BS excuses and male apologies.

You are wrong. And you need to look further than apologists' websites.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this confuses cart and horse...

It's both.

 

[rustypouch]

I think this confuses cart and horse.

Men follow the money. They go to high paying jobs, even if they hate those jobs.

If you start paying day care workers as much as you pay loggers, there will be more male day care workers. But why would you pay day care workers that much, when there are people (i.e. women) who will do the job for less?

Yep. And companies, in general, want to pay their employees as little as possible. Hiring all women would be a great way to increase profits, if the wage gap is as great as some claim.

But this seems to be a derail from the point of the thread. Men are greatly overrepresented in many negative metrics. Suicide, homelessness, workplace injuries and fatalities, life expectancy, etc. There is also the court system, which treats men harsher than women, for the same crimes. Society doesn't really care about this, and more awareness can only help.

 

[cullennz]

That's dumb.

Indeed. You could almost say its a sexist issue.

But it doesn't seem to work both ways.

Kind of why I think day is needed

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep. And companies, in general, want to pay their employees as little as possible. Hiring all women would be a great way to increase profits, if the wage gap is as great as some claim.....

This falsely assumes there is rationality to an issue that is heavily influenced by culture.

For example, in my earlier underpaid years as a nurse, we were frequently short staffed. Normally in a labor market, when there is a shortage of supply, demand should dictate that wages rise.

But it didn't because wages were kept low by what in any other profession would have been considered illegal collusion. Hospitals colluded to all pay the same wages to nurses. They colluded not to compete for each others' nursing staff. The excuses proliferated, nurses couldn't strike because patients would suffer and so on.

1199 came in and began to provide better union representation than we had with nurses organizations that had union branches. But it wasn't enough to break the hospital monopoly on wages.

A change occurred in the mid-eighties, somewhat of a perfect storm:

• Insurance companies began paying by the diagnosis instead of by patient need. Hospitals were forced to send sicker patients home sooner.
• Advances in medical care upped the technology in intensive care units by a large degree.
• Nursing staffing agencies began providing ICU nurses that hospitals needed more and more. It was more and more difficult for hospitals to function if short staffed.
• As hospitals faced competition for the first time, agencies started paying nurses more and more, and hospitals were forced to pay the rising costs. Nurses began fleeing the hospitals in droves to work for the agencies.
• In no time hospitals were forced to pay nurses more to keep them from leaving.

For the first time in the history of nursing in the US, the market forces of supply and demand hit hospital labor forces. I was in the first wave of nurses that went to work for the agencies and eventually became an independent contractor cutting out the agency middle-men. My wages went up 300% in just a few months then doubled in the subsequent year.

Today nursing wages have reached parity in many positions. Nurse managers are still seriously underpaid compared to equivalent managerial fields, but it's much better than it used to be because the hospitals had to pay managers more than floor staff. But nursing management position pay still isn't comparable to hospital administrator pay despite the fact nurse managers have greater responsibilities. There was a saying among us that nurses were rewarded with titles rather than better pay.


Edited to add: So don't try to tell me women are only underpaid relative to men because they work fewer hours and take time off to have kids. I watched the cork suppressing supply and demand pop off first hand. I was involved in the the court case we had to pursue to become independent contractors in this state because the people at the state labor and industry that made these judgements had an image of a nurse as the little bedpan girl. We had to educate them that nursing was a profession in its own right and we weren't a mere extension of doctors.

And yes, it was a sexist issue, first and foremost. But we had another saying that nurses were their own worst enemy because women are just as much a product of the culture as men are.