|
ReadyToHuman posted:Amusingly, when a job is regarded as a job women go for, it's valued less. You've got the cause and effect backwards here I think, historically a job has been considered "for women" because of it's low value, not the other way around.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
botany posted:That's not true (or at least not in all cases): when the industrial revolution came around and factory work became the standard way of earning a living, female factory workers were typically paid just under half of what the male factory workers were paid. These were new jobs that didn't exist before the creation of manufactories, and both male and female workers were employed in the same jobs, especially in the creation of wool and cotton goods, and shoe-making, as well as packaging in several industries. In all of those cases the average wage for a female worker is often less than half of that for male workers. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said edit: it's also just wrong, women generally worked different factory jobs then men, specifically they came into the factory workforce en mass with the invention of the power loom because the child labor that were the chief workers of that industry weren't tall enough to operate it. ReadyToHuman posted:You'd think so, but it turns out no. This also doesn't address what I said at all, it's clearly considered a low value profession in Russia Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
botany posted:When manufacturing created new jobs, especially in the textile industry, men and women both worked those jobs. Women were paid less. Weavers are one of the few factory jobs that was almost exclusively done by women, most other factory jobs, even in the textile industry, employed male and female workers. Even more important for your argument is that non-farm menial labor and daylabor was almost exclusively a male job, and it payed even less than the textile work. If low value was the reason a job was considered "for women", (a) non-farm labor would have been considered a female occupation and (b) new jobs that were done by men and women would presumably have paid out equally. Instead women just get paid less, whatever their job, and regardless of whether the job is seen as stereotypically male or female. There are low value jobs that weren't traditionally women's work for various reasons including physical intensity but that's kind of irrelevant. We were talking specifically a professions that are considered "women's work" so naturally assumed you were talking about weavers. Yes women historically were paid less when working "men's" or true coed work because there were viewed as less valuable then a man, I'm not sure why you think that has anything to do with what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:If women view having children as more important than career, they shouldn't be surprised when they are shoved aside by people who choose to focus on career. There's a complicated issue here of women being pressured into doing this because of sexist notions of gender roles and the fact many women do this completely willingly. I say this as someone who is currently feeling pressure to give up my career to have children because my wife makes more money, and someone who's mother in law had a Harvard education which she used for about 3 years before she became a full time mom and claims it was the best decision of her life.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There's also the counter-trend of men not doing the same for their children, both because they're not expected to, and that there's this assumption that doing so emasculates them - which is something you see both men and women spout. 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?" Usually the response was a dumbfounded look. The whole concept it's dumb, old school gender roles make being the lesser economic partner an achievement as a man with even the slightest bit of critical thinking. It's kind of amusing though because since I've become part of the student veteran community it seems like I see more and more the exact opposite, I literally walked into a veteran's lounge a month or two ago to about 5 guys gossiping about who had the girlfriend with the most promising or prestigious career. I think the wage gap is a problem, but I honestly feel like it's an artifact of feminism not having been successful enough for long enough for large amounts of women to have moved into leadership roles that can typically take 20-30 years to reach. I know it's easy to say this as a man but I think by the end of this decade this will be all but gone. I also admit my views have been coloured by being married to a women that I had a long and rather ugly fight with because she refused to identify as female in her law school application because she was too proud to stomach the idea of not beating out her male peers by pure academic merit. An argument I only won by playing the "you privileged gently caress this isn't a game, anyone I grew up with would literally kill for this opportunity" card. So I guess I should also say my views are also coloured by having a substantial number of women in my life that are significantly more privileged then I.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
joepinetree posted: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. Interesting, my anecdotal experience has been the exact opposite, though just that: anecdotal. It's also shocking to me that people would choose geographic priority on anything other then who makes the most money unless the disparity is inconsequential. (edit: of course I mean if you're locating based on career instead of picking a location based on where you want to live)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 13:18
|
|