|
Pimpmust posted:Hmm, thought I saw some interesting statistics/study on what happened when a formely female-dominated or male-dominated sector switched around (rather rapidly), like if there was suddenly a majority of male nurses within ~a decade, and what that meant for pay. There is also evidence of a "glass escalator." Men in female dominated professions are promoted much faster because of these gendered expectations. That is, even when a man wants to be an elementary school teacher, he will get promoted to administration much faster than women, for example.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:The wage gap is the opposite for people under 30 though. Millennial women are paid more than men and have a higher percentage of college degrees. Men, especially black men, are being left behind. That is, as far as I can tell, based on one study in the UK that was much hyped. Minority women are still far below everyone else in income even when controlling for credentials in the US. The higher percentage of college degrees doesn't do much to address the wage gap, since the main reasons for that are still related to how relatively closed skilled trade occupations still are for women (think plumbers, electricians, etc) and how low paying female dominated majors are (social work, nursing, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
And on that note: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/meritocracy/418074/ quote:Women, ethnic minorities, and non-U.S.-born employees received a smaller increase in compensation compared with white men, despite holding the same jobs, working in the same units, having the same supervisors, the same human capital, and importantly, receiving the same performance score. Despite stating that “performance is the primary bases for all salary increases,” the reality was that women, minorities, and those born outside the U.S. needed “to work harder and obtain higher performance scores in order to receive similar salary increases to white men.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I feel like this it's dying out a bit, though it may be personal anecdotes giving me a false impression. When I first married my wife I was still in the army (which is still in the 1950s when it comes to gender roles) and I got this a bit. But the thing is it doesn't even make sense by the sexist role logic, I always responded by saying "so you think a she should have married some rich super successful guy normally? Okay so the fact that she married me when I had nothing but looks and personality and the salary of an army private it's supposed to make me feel emasculated... how?" But things are more complicated than that, even within prestigious careers. I work on labor issues within academia. One of the patterns in academia is that even as gender representation has started to even out across many fields, there is still a huge difference across types of universities. In particular, women are much more likely to be underrepresented in research universities when compared to teaching oriented universities. For a long time the thinking was that teaching oriented universities had lower research expectations, and therefore lower workloads, so women were self selecting into them. After further research, turns out that the workload difference is non-existent. Faculty at research universities work just as many hours as faculty in teaching intensive ones, though they do different things. So how come women end up in teaching oriented institutions much more frequently? One big reason is geographic mobility. To land a research oriented job, the person has to be willing to move across the country for a postdoc, then again for a tenure track job. And as it turns out partners/families are a lot less willing to relocate like this for the wife's job, as opposed to the husband's job. Since there are more teaching oriented universities, and they tend to have less requirements in terms of specialty, they end up being particularly attractive for geographically restricted women. I.e., women end up being a lot more likely to end up at the local community or liberal arts college because they will just want to hire a general biologist, while research universities will have a very narrow specialty requirement that would likely require someone to move halfway cross the country to land at a research university. I personally know a case of a female scientist who gave up a job making 70k+ to teach at a local college making low 40s because her bank manager husband got transferred. Likewise, I know a former harvard associate professor who went to a state school because of her husband's career, despite the fact that harvard paid more than both their new jobs combined. And while my work is focused specifically on academia, this is part of a broader pattern. Lot's of young people say they want their marriages to be egalitarian and share the burden of child-rearing and so on equally. But when that is not possible (be it because one career requires moving a lot, or because one career has long hours, etc), the fall back position still is man becomes the breadwinner. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/upshot/millennial-men-find-work-and-family-hard-to-balance.html?_r=0
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 07:20
|
|