|
AlphaDog posted:Why do you think that the problem here is that women don't know how to negotiate a salary? It's not that they don't know, it's that they don't do so as frequently as men. Several peer-review studies have given that as a partial explanation for wage disparity. I didn't think it was a controversial statement.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
LibertyCat posted:It's not that they don't know, it's that they don't do so as frequently as men. Several peer-review studies have given that as an explanation for wage disparity. I didn't think it was a controversial statement. women don't ask for pay rises as frequently as men because they're perceived negatively if they do so you loving moron
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
"a woman who asks for a pay rise in exactly the same manner as a man will experience worse results from doing so" "well clearly we just need to teach women how to ask for pay rises"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:women don't ask for pay rises as frequently as men because they're perceived negatively if they do so you loving moron Aren't you a ray of sunshine. Maybe if everyone roleplayed salary negotiation at school, both as the employer and employee, with a big mix of genders, it would take away some of the bias against female negotiators. It certainly couldn't hurt. I'm trying to offer solutions. What do you propose (instead of spitting bile at the computer screen)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:It's not that they don't know, it's that they don't do so as frequently as men. Several peer-review studies have given that as a partial explanation for wage disparity. I didn't think it was a controversial statement. Then how will classes to teach them how to do it help?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Then how will classes to teach them how to do it help? Improving their confidence? Setting up expectations that women will negotiate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Endman posted:What There's no evidence that barter economies ever existed. It's just how classical economists assumed society worked before the invention of currency. The current understanding of pre-currency societies is that it was based on social debt. e: The :goonsay: was self-deprecating, because I care too much about this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Improving their confidence? Setting up expectations that women will negotiate? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Besides, including 'how to ask/push for a pay rise' as a standard curriculum is gonna cause more harm than good for reasons beyond gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation/whatever other discriminative lines are being drawn. I'm just going on gut feel with this, I have no evidence to base this on, but that seems pretty likely to cause employers to wise up to the techniques being taught. They're not stupid, even if they don't see the curriculum itself they're going to notice that all of these new employees are sticking to the same script. Even if that method worked when they were taught it, it's gonna work a whole lot less when it's everybody doing it by rote rather than the people doing it because they individually saw the window.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:There's no evidence that barter economies ever existed. It's just how classical economists assumed society worked before the invention of currency. The current understanding of pre-currency societies is that it was based on social debt. Ohh, poo poo. No, you're right. I totally forgot about that. Sorry, I've got the flu at the moment and my brain isn't working properly. Communal property and resources were also a lot more common before the advent of currency and have been in pretty steady decline since, albeit far accelerated for the last ~500 years in Western (particularly Anglo) cultures. gently caress you, Elizabethan Land Enclosures!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:25
|
|
was self-deprecating, because I care too much about this.
|
 Fash Bashed
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:There's no evidence that barter economies ever existed. It's just how classical economists assumed society worked before the invention of currency. The current understanding of pre-currency societies is that it was based on social debt. This legit sounds interesting, got any good links/books?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
The main difference is that "barter economies" are based on the somewhat baseless assumption on a "quid pro quo" transfer of goods/services between people, whereas "gift economies" are looser, social-debt based systems that have a lot more basis in actual historical evidence. Basically, I do you a favour, you owe me a favour, but there's very little concrete relationship between the two despite the implicit understanding that people doing each other favours creates a healthy community.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
https://www.twitter.com/MarkRobinsonMP/status/716420526302867456
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Froglet's jobhunt anecdotes from the other thread would be pretty instructive here, I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Froglet's jobhunt anecdotes from the other thread would be pretty instructive here, I imagine. ixnay on the otheray eadthray
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Many of the people I know who are really good in their field have been interested in it since primary school. If we're going to change attitudes (and get more great women Scientists/Engineers/Doctors/Mathematicians) I'd start there. Unfortunately, getting people interested in specific fields is only half the battle. Take the legal industry for example; we've now got a situation where 63% of law graduates of women, so there's clearly not an issue with recruitment; however, only 19% of senior lawyers are women. This is despite the fact that female lawyers have an incredibly high average age (>35) at which they have their first child. In order for women to be taken seriously at the top, they need to be given a chance to prove themselves. This does not mean promoting unqualified women over qualified men; it just means allowing women who are qualified to prove themselves in positions of higher management. https://www.lawsociety.com.au/cs/groups/public/documents/internetcontent/461899.pdf <- more stats about women in the legal profession if you're a stats nerd. I would argue quotas this will result in greater equity overall as people get used to the idea of having women in higher positions. It'll also have a knock-on effect of encouraging more women to apply for these higher positions in the first place. It is really encouraging when you see more and more women making it to the top of your chosen field. Eventually quotas won't even be necessary at all in certain fields. Here's an interesting case study (which is by no means definitive, but it at least in theory supports my argument) from an article in the Monthly quote:Scope for optimism on this front is offered by an investigation of the effects of a political gender quota system in India. In 1993 a law was passed requiring that every election cycle leadership positions be reserved for women in randomly selected village councils. Ten years on, women were more likely to stand for, and win, elected positions in councils that had reserved positions for women in the previous two elections. In addition, the experience of living in a village with a female leader on the council improved men’s unambiguously biased perception of women’s leadership abilities. Perhaps no less importantly, though, the effects of the quota system trickled down to the next generation. In villages selected to reserve a female leadership position for two election cycles, girls were much more likely to have similar aspirations to boys, and the gap in educational achievement was closed. This was due entirely to enhancements of girls’ achievements and desires, such as to delay marriage, graduate and get a skilled job. Parents’ aspirations for their daughters were similarly changed under female leadership. In what is perhaps an implicit appeal to the need for courage and patience in thinking about quotas and their effects, the researchers note the delayed timing of the positive consequences, suggesting that “[a]lthough the first generation of women leaders may encounter significant prejudice, their experience can pave the way for others to go further”. There's also the quotas implemented by Norway a few years back, which appear to have been quite successful The Monthly article points out that there are other issues with quota systems; the bias against them appears to lead to a perception that women hired under a quota are likely to be less competent (and this perception is shared by the women themselves) and this might actually have an effect on performance; however, I would like to see the results in an instance where there wasn't such a widespread bias against quotas in general. As for your other questions, I'm not really an expert on Human Resources or Criminology, so I have no idea how these systems could be implemented to avoid the common pitfalls that go with them. I do think that quotas can do some real good in beginning a sort-of (and I can't believe I'm going to say this phrase) "trickle-down effect" of equality in many areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Aren't you a ray of sunshine. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Skipped the last few pages because I'm probably blocked already plus this will be ignored but speaking as a hated STEM employee plus a vulgar socialist it always astounds me that modern assholes ignore the fact that processing (programming) and also data analysis was left to the ladies as it was seen as lesser work that men shouldn't be bothered with. Now, it's the total opposite and hilarious when dickheads try to rewrite like only men understand logic. Reminder if caveat that I have not read anything previously plus apologies if this is a retread. Eh. I can't even remember what prompted this...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:
Fash = Smashed
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
I love the irony in someone arguing that people just need to negotiate better while simultaneously following an ideology built on crushing the ability of workers to negotiate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
I don't condone violence but loving hell there's some amazing irony that a group of people turn on full victim mode when they've spent the last X months calling the left-wing dudes a bunch of pussies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
fliptophead posted:Skipped the last few pages because I'm probably blocked already plus this will be ignored but speaking as a hated STEM employee plus a vulgar socialist it always astounds me that modern assholes ignore the fact that processing (programming) and also data analysis was left to the ladies as it was seen as lesser work that men shouldn't be bothered with. Now, it's the total opposite and hilarious when dickheads try to rewrite like only men understand logic. Reminder if caveat that I have not read anything previously plus apologies if this is a retread. Eh. I can't even remember what prompted this... There's actually quite a few STEMs in here. This is a good point because it speaks to social constructs around gender being the problem. The solution to which (the social constructs that harm both men and women) is feminism. Libertycat you can feel free to call me a "hopelessly naive" for the views that I hold, but I hold those views because I have done research into them and found what I personally believe to be good solutions to problems. However on any topic I'm willing to listen to the arguments of others and change my view about a subject. A good example of this is silencers, which, from the arguments and evidence presented in here I now do not disagree with the legalization of. Can you say that you hold your opinions with the same degree of flexibility? Because honestly I didn't know much about the definition of civilization until this debate happened but the evidence that I have seen presented here seems to indicate that Aboriginal settlements fit the definition of civilization. Given how you've been wrong in the information you have presented before about Aboriginals and how they lived prior to white colonization are you willing to accept that possibly your view of civilization that excludes aboriginals may be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
tithin posted:You know what I'm trying to say and you disagree, but you're choosing to insult me and my choice of friends. Shut up
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
In other news, Bob Ellis has died
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
You catch more flies with honey, but you catch more honey's if you're fly
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
quote:University of Queensland Union to host bake sale that charges based on gender http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...402-gnwsts.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
 OH so this is the election winning positioning they are going for. Blame Labah Volume XIV
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
If only men learned how to negotiate better prices for themselves
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Anidav posted:
From the Daily Telegraph (Sunday Tele): quote:EVERY child locked up in Australian immigration detention centres is free for the first time since Labor’s shameful record of 8469 kids being incarcerated under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. lol like they give a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Define "free".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Looks like that obvious stunt was very successful then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Note: All children have been reclassified as 'Tiny miniature terrorist persons'
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Anidav posted:
Yeah but there's still kids in Nauru, this is pretty misleading
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
fliptophead posted:it always astounds me that modern assholes ignore the fact that processing (programming) and also data analysis was left to the ladies as it was seen as lesser work that men shouldn't be bothered with. Now, it's the total opposite and hilarious when dickheads try to rewrite like only men understand logic. My understanding is the bulk of female "computers" were doing mathematical grunt work, and were not designing algorithms like higher skilled programmers today quote:. "The human computer is supposed to be following fixed rules; he has no authority to deviate from them in any detail." (Turing, 1950) You can't really compare what the average WW2 "computer" did vs a programmer today. And no I am not saying that only Men understand logic. Men do seem predisposed to programming however. Computer programmers were never seen as "cool" in school etc so it's not like society pushed them towards it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:My understanding is the bulk of female "computers" were doing mathematical grunt work, and were not designing algorithms like higher skilled programmers today  Bonus points if you dont know who she is and what she is standing next to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
They just reclassified some detention centers as community detention. It was in the guardian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Women can't be programmers, they will get their menstrual blood all over the keyboard you see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Anidav posted:OH so this is the election winning positioning they are going for. Seems to be the Greens campaign approach. They're trying really hard for the #1 Green #2 LNP vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:22
|
|