SpaceClown posted:

And they are usually backed by studies and surveys from reputable sources. I have nothing to refute that with, because they are all reasonable things that would indeed cause a wage gap that's not explicitly sexist.

SpaceClown posted:

but then why has it resurged as a cornerstone of feminist discourse as an example of modern discrimination?

wouldn't it be more appropriate to approach the issue asking why women are less aggressive on average in their careers? I think it's squandering an opportunity to discuss a sociological difference when it's approached the way that it's approached.

SpaceClown posted:

I'm not arguing against that, I'm saying why isn't it approached in that way? Isn't it disingenuous to continue to paint it in the light of discrimination as opposed to sociological predisposition that results in less women making career choices that result in a higher pay?

Isn't it wasted potential to refuse to use it as a springboard for that dialogue? Especially when it's actually a non-sequitur?

SpaceClown posted:

But apparently it is because it's resulting in more women receiving lower pay than their male counterparts because of a more common trend of less aggressive career moves. But in the mainstream, nobody is taking the opportunity to ask why that is. What are the sociological pressures causing this? Is there biological factors at play or is it strictly sociological?

SpaceClown posted:

It's not discriminatory when it's self-inflicted. There ARE women who exhibit the same aggression in their careers and make the same as their male counterparts, it's not even that terribly uncommon. It's a phenomenon of more women than men being unaggressive in their career choices and that translates to the wage gap. That's completely disingenuous to imply it's discrimination and not a sex-based trend.


Example:
More women than men buy X car in Y color. Is that inherently discriminatory?

But then what's gained by framing it as the result of discriminatory hiring practices?
I think it isn't a pointless discussion to talk about why there's a bigger trend of career-going women shooting themselves in the foot as opposed to men and finding out just why that is. Because otherwise there won't be a solution. The only thing that could be solved is the issues regarding maternity leave but that's not really as huge of an issue as the other two points that I brought up.

Completely agree with the bolded statement.

SpaceClown posted:

Because we have to look at what aggression means here.

Going into an interview with HR, the salary they pose is considered a starting point with intention of it going up. They expect you're going to argue that you're worth more than that. Not everybody does, plenty of people just take what it says. More women than men settle for that starting salary and bam. You've already started below the pay of your peers and that's only going to continue to be reflected even after promotions as your colleagues had a head start.

Then you have the 2-year trick, which once again, women have a trend of not doing. More experience, more pay. That's the biggest contributor to making above baseline salary and the fact that the trend of women not doing it exists is possibly the greatest contributor to the wage gap. Think of it like this, the business you worked at knows exactly what you did during your stint there and will compensate you with promotions. When you apply to another workplace, they don't know exactly everything you did, only whats on your resume and it boils down to them seeing "2 years of experience at this company" as opposed to "cleaned up spaghetti code" or whatever crap task you did to get a promotion. Needless to say, that generic experience counts for a whole lot more.

This is what I mean by aggression. The corporate world isn't a meritocracy, it never was and it never will be.

SpaceClown posted:

Because assertiveness is a pretty massive signal of self-respect? Moreover, would you try this argument as to East Asian street markets discriminating against westerners because they don't haggle? If you don't think you're worth more money than what a corporation initially suggests, they are more than happy to pay you that lesser amount. But it's expected that you argue for yourself and demonstrate that you're worth more than that figure, because they want confident talent. If you're talking about why is assertiveness in this context considered more important, it's simple; Unconfident talent simply does not produce like confident talent, and are you really surprised that a corporation would want confident talent?

SpaceClown posted:

I somewhat agree, however I have often seen answers that suggest changes like removing haggling from the hiring process or cracking down on workplace hopping neither of which are beneficial to nobody. You're just crippling people who know how to and are willing to operate in a corporate environment and forcing them to work for the crap pay their dipshit coworkers work for. That's not a solution at all, in my opinion.

The real solution, like I have suggested I think twice before ITT, should be to identify and analyze the sociological factors that go into why these trends currently exist and how to eliminate those pressures.

SpaceClown posted:

Just wow, my dude.

Bad self-esteem isn't feminine you idiot. It's a byproduct of living in a crap society that treats you like poo poo for your genitals for sure, but it's not an inherently masculine trait to be assertive. But no, there's a masculine overrepresentation in IT because the men who work in it are loving toxic as poo poo, just like all computing fields.

I only went into it because I could do it in my sleep, all I needed was to bust my rear end for 2 semesters at community college for an assload of certifications, and it payed the rent for a lovely apartment I found when I moved out of my girlfriend's loft.

SpaceClown posted:

Yes, forcing everybody to wear training wheels certainly does benefit the idiots who can't function without them. A good observation. However that's not a good solution at all, your real solution should be to learn why those idiots need their training wheels and how to stop them from being idiots.

Rexicon1 posted: