I'm sure there is a thread buried somewhere on this but lets start fresh.
This morning a local radio station spent some time getting opinions and debating the topic of the wage gap between men and women.
One of the interesting factors I hadn't heard before came from a local businessman that owns a small engineering firm. He brought up the fact that women are more likely than men to leave work to care for children. This is nothing new... but I hadnt thought about it in the context of engineering before. I work in software/hardware testing and development. After 3-4 years at my job I have a vast amount of "tribal knowledge". I have been the soul person to work on some projects... I am the only person left that has worked on some projects... In some ways I am more valuable to my company than a more intelligent harder working person would be purely because of experience in the company. I remember hearing a factoid at some point about how software places dont expect engineers to work to the level of their pay for at least 6 months to a year because of ramp up time and gaining the experience needed to be pretty self sufficient. Keeping that in mind we circle back to the debate of women versus men.... if you are hiring between two people mid 20s to late 30s, equally qualified and one is a man and the other is a woman... it may come down to how long you think that person will stay with your company. If you hire the guy chances are he's going to stay unless working conditions dont mesh well with him or if he gets a better opportunity somewhere else.... If you hire the gal those same factors apply plus the increased chance that she could have a kid and choose to not work anymore. I am not saying that it is "morally correct" or "ethical" to factor that in... but for a business that has a goal of hiring people that will provide the most value it's kind of hard to ignore this factor.
One of the things I was also surprised at is the female radio host seemed to be quiet offended at this guy's honesty. To me it just makes sense... he's hired a few women before that have gotten pregnant and left shortly after coming back from maternity leave so now whenever he sees a female applicant he can't help but factor in those past occurrences.
The idea of hiring based on the fact that someone "might" get pregnant should not be a consideration. It's ridiculous to suggest that there is any value in hiring an inferior candidate solely based on guessing what you think might happen in their personal lives in the future.
That being said, I think there is some merit in the "tribal knowledge" argument I just think you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
For example, I can see this as a legitimate reason for why women would find it more difficult to earn promotion if they have taken time off for pregnancy or to raise children. If you are judging between who should get a promotion between two employees, it seems reasonable that the one with more knowledge and experience would have an increased chance than one who has taken time off (for whatever reason pregnancy, illness, etc).
but for a business that has a goal of hiring people that will provide the most value it's kind of hard to ignore this factor.
Which is why you've seen worker's movements fighting against this sort of thing, by implementing paid maternity leave and campaigning for mandatory shared parental leave.
That bosses want control over our life situations is inherent to the relationship between employer and employee. It's why they are our enemies. The only thing to do is fight back.
I totally agree with the leave part. I was trying to focus on the instance where the female then quits her job to care for her child. When that happens the company kind of gets screwed. They may have hired a temp or cross trained someone to handle the maternity leave (or just not worked on a particular project for a couple months), then the temp is let go or the other person goes back to their expected normal duties for a month or so and suddenly the company has to find a replacement. In a short period of time they have to train someone for the same job twice.
Not so much of a big deal in service fields or receptionist, factories etc... but when your engineers need to know a proprietary language, or networking protocol or niche technology... It could be big ramp up times.
For example, I can see this as a legitimate reason for why women would find it more difficult to earn promotion if they have taken time off for pregnancy or to raise children. If you are judging between who should get a promotion between two employees, it seems reasonable that the one with more knowledge and experience would have an increased chance than one who has taken time off (for whatever reason pregnancy, illness, etc).
For sure that's part of it. I work with a guy that was hired a year later than me and is the same age but I would be surprised if he doesnt make more than me now... why? Because he regularly puts in 60 hour weeks. He works from home constantly. I expect him to make more than me because he does more work than I do. I was not surprised that he got a promotion before I did. Now his wife is pregnant... it will be interesting to see what happens to his work schedule when he's also a father and whether or not he can still balance trying to please everyone at work and not piss off his wife.
But at least one of the reasons that women are more likely than men to leave their job permanently to care for children (rather than come back after parental leave) is the pay gap.
If one parent has to quit work to look after the child, and the male partner is earning more than the female partner, it's economically sensible for it to be the female who quits.
So I wonder if that argument is somewhat circular; women earn less than men because women are more likely to leave their job for family reasons because women earn less than men.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
But at least one of the reasons that women are more likely than men to leave their job permanently to care for children (rather than come back after parental leave) is the pay gap.
If one parent has to quit work to look after the child, and the male partner is earning more than the female partner, it's economically sensible for it to be the female who quits.
So I wonder if that argument is somewhat circular; women earn less than men because women are more likely to leave their job for family reasons because women earn less than men.
It would be interesting to get data on couples that have their situation reversed and see if that trend holds for couples where the woman makes equal pay and greater pay.
Also I hesitate to say the pay gap is the reason that women are more likely to quit since I would assume that most couples do not work in the exact same field. Sure if both parents are teachers it's a pay gap issue... if one is a doctor and the other is a teacher that has nothing to do with the pay gap. Maybe studies would need to be separate for high skill careers versus couples working in service industries and other entry level/low education requirement jobs.
Also I hesitate to say the pay gap is the reason that women are more likely to quit since I would assume that most couples do not work in the exact same field. Sure if both parents are teachers it's a pay gap issue... if one is a doctor and the other is a teacher that has nothing to do with the pay gap. Maybe studies would need to be separate for high skill careers versus couples working in service industries and other entry level/low education requirement jobs.
Then I must ask, who is more likely to BE in a high-skill field in the first place? From what I recall it is well-established that high-skill, high-paying fields are dominated by men, and the reasons for that are a whole other discussion of its own. Also, note, companies generally don't have as many pre-existing accommodations for men who have kids. The general assumption is that their wife will take care of the at-home stuff. Since the only accommodations available are for women only, the woman has to do more of the childcare work. And like with all corporate privileges, you're punished for ever making use of them, so in a strange way, women are worse off BECAUSE companies try to give them extra privileges. The answer, I think, is not in erasing the female accommodations, but instead to extend them to men as well.
But at least one of the reasons that women are more likely than men to leave their job permanently to care for children (rather than come back after parental leave) is the pay gap.
If one parent has to quit work to look after the child, and the male partner is earning more than the female partner, it's economically sensible for it to be the female who quits.
So I wonder if that argument is somewhat circular; women earn less than men because women are more likely to leave their job for family reasons because women earn less than men.
It would be interesting to get data on couples that have their situation reversed and see if that trend holds for couples where the woman makes equal pay and greater pay.
Also I hesitate to say the pay gap is the reason that women are more likely to quit since I would assume that most couples do not work in the exact same field. Sure if both parents are teachers it's a pay gap issue... if one is a doctor and the other is a teacher that has nothing to do with the pay gap. Maybe studies would need to be separate for high skill careers versus couples working in service industries and other entry level/low education requirement jobs.
There's two issues there, though. Across-all-jobs pay gap ('why do jobs dominated by men pay better?') and within-job pay gap ('why do men get paid more than women for the same job?').
In the case that I was thinking of when I posted, a friend is a stay-at-home dad for exactly that reason - his partner's job was better paying, so he quit his to be the home parent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I guess where my thought process is ultimately going is to the assertion that it may no longer be beneficial to look at or debate over over all statistics like "Women make 77% less than men".
There are too many variables at this point for that to be a useful starting point for a discussion. I think we've hit a point where it's more beneficial to look at fields and regions and make the comparisons and debate reasoning on that level. For example... Professional sports! Why do male professional athletes make 10x more than women athletes? Probably has a lot to do with popularity... now you could debate whether or not it's "okay" for society to prefer male athletes but at least you can get down to that level.
I'd like to see and reason out the numbers for other fields and careers. Do women in accounting make less than men? Why is that? Is there a real problem here or is it just a happenstance of the differences between how men and women (on average) work. Are men in accounting more apt to negotiate their salary? Are hiring managers "programmed" to believe they can hire a woman for less? Are men preferred for some reason? Are men more likely to work over normal hours?
I think if society broke this debate/problem into a career by career exercise we'll get much better results and wont get bogged down in hypothetical reasons that dont apply to every career. Then we'd be much more able to discover true issues without being blinded by reasoning that doesn't apply to every field.
The few things I have seen regarding this say that women and men who start an engineering job on average make the same amount but as time goes on, the men make more. Also, men on average work more hours per week than women do. It was something like for full time positions, men worked like an hour more per week or something of that sort.
Also, women tend to choose safer, more secure jobs that pay less whereas men take riskier, less safe jobs that pay more.
The problem with the 'tribal knowledge' theorem is actually reversed in many other fields since men are more prone to hurting themselves or having other health impairing conditions. Men tend to have a greater chance of lasting out in desk styled positions and less in "on your feet" labor like cashiering and waiting tables ironically.
Also I hesitate to say the pay gap is the reason that women are more likely to quit since I would assume that most couples do not work in the exact same field. Sure if both parents are teachers it's a pay gap issue... if one is a doctor and the other is a teacher that has nothing to do with the pay gap. Maybe studies would need to be separate for high skill careers versus couples working in service industries and other entry level/low education requirement jobs.
Then I must ask, who is more likely to BE in a high-skill field in the first place? From what I recall it is well-established that high-skill, high-paying fields are dominated by men, and the reasons for that are a whole other discussion of its own. Also, note, companies generally don't have as many pre-existing accommodations for men who have kids. The general assumption is that their wife will take care of the at-home stuff. Since the only accommodations available are for women only, the woman has to do more of the childcare work. And like with all corporate privileges, you're punished for ever making use of them, so in a strange way, women are worse off BECAUSE companies try to give them extra privileges. The answer, I think, is not in erasing the female accommodations, but instead to extend them to men as well.
Law is definitely a high-skill field, and the numbers of men versus women starting out as associates at the top 200 law firms is pretty close to 50/50 (it's 47% women). Nearly all of the major law firms pay their incoming associates exactly the same amount, so there is essentially zero pay gap at the outset.
However, when it comes to making partner (becoming a "boss" if you will, and making tons of money) women trail by a huge margin: 15% versus men's 85%.
Most firms offer both paternity and maternity leave, and do not punish an attorney for taking it. The thing is, partnership decisions are based on merit: how much business you generate, how many hours you work, and how many cases you win. If you take any substantial amount of leave, it becomes much harder to stand out on these metrics. For this reason, it's almost unheard of for men to take paternity leave.
So how do you solve this problem? Make law firms stop making partnership decisions based on merit? Force men to take paternity leave? (Many men would just choose not to have kids, that's how much money we're talking about).
I thought for law firms, its generally you have a set amount of time to make partner and if you don't they put you in a different position where you are unable to do so or ask you to leave to work elsewhere?
Timothy Mimeslayer-The few things I have seen regarding this say that women and men who start an engineering job on average make the same amount but as time goes on, the men make more. Also, men on average work more hours per week than women do. It was something like for full time positions, men worked like an hour more per week or something of that sort.
Also, women tend to choose safer, more secure jobs that pay less whereas men take riskier, less safe jobs that pay more.
__________________
One of the things that irks me about the discussion of the "wage gap" to the point where I refer to it as a myth is the costs men pay to bring home that extra money is ignored. The "wage gap" is presented as proof that women are mistreated/discriminated against when that is the LEAST relevent factor.
I guess where my thought process is ultimately going is to the assertion that it may no longer be beneficial to look at or debate over over all statistics like "Women make 77% less than men".
There are too many variables at this point for that to be a useful starting point for a discussion. I think we've hit a point where it's more beneficial to look at fields and regions and make the comparisons and debate reasoning on that level. For example... Professional sports! Why do male professional athletes make 10x more than women athletes? Probably has a lot to do with popularity... now you could debate whether or not it's "okay" for society to prefer male athletes but at least you can get down to that level.
I'd like to see and reason out the numbers for other fields and careers. Do women in accounting make less than men? Why is that? Is there a real problem here or is it just a happenstance of the differences between how men and women (on average) work. Are men in accounting more apt to negotiate their salary? Are hiring managers "programmed" to believe they can hire a woman for less? Are men preferred for some reason? Are men more likely to work over normal hours?
I think if society broke this debate/problem into a career by career exercise we'll get much better results and wont get bogged down in hypothetical reasons that dont apply to every career. Then we'd be much more able to discover true issues without being blinded by reasoning that doesn't apply to every field.
Simply looking at wage gaps is practice considered outdated by researchers for a while now.
The general mincer equation result is that women earn less for being a women but it's nowherer near what the wage gap suggests. A coworker of mine did her graduation finishing paper on this and found that the result was that women, with all variables controlled, earn about 5% less then men across the panel in Brazil.
The literature speculate on three possible reasons:
i) The one you brought up in this thread. Women have a bigger chance to take her time off due to pregnancy and children. That risk is rationalized by employers who will favor men over women in the selection of jobs that requires greater levels of commitment but pay more.
ii) Pure cultural differentiation. Society irrationally consider women less productive and the labor markets reflect that.
iii) Some researchers found that depends on the job, women earn even more cepteris paribus (such as marketing). The idea is that women and men are different physiologically and depending on the job one will be more productive. The differentiation across the panel is due the composition of the economy - there is a greater number of jobs were men produce more.
I think the three approach each have it's merit own and requires more research.
A coworker of mine did her graduation finishing paper on this and found that the result was that women, with all variables controlled, earn about 5% less then men across the panel in Brazil.
This is basically what I've found to be correct as well. Studies that account for hours worked and compare equivalent positions instead of blanket comparing all the jobs in an industry, the earning gap decreases to a much smaller one (somewhere between 5-15%).
That's not to say it isn't a still a problem, but most of the studies out there don't actually effectively compare jobs. It's easy to say 'women in the healthcare field make x% less than their male counterparts', but the reality is that the gender dynamics between jobs in the healthcare field is skewed, and when you compare similar professions (say, Pediatrician to Pediatrician) instead of dissimilar ones (Pediatrician to Orthopedic Surgeon), the gap narrows significantly.
At this point, I've yet to come across someone who can adequately explain why the gap is that way, but in general the consensus is that women tend to poorer negotiators when it comes to setting their pay, thanks to cultural conditioning not to make waves. Don't know how true that is, as there isn't really evidence to support it.
Ahh that was brought up on the radio. It's been researched and found that men do tend to negotiate for higher pay more often and request promotions more. (I know I got one this last year and it just so happens that earlier in the year I asked about what it would take to get a promotion, this also happened in a year with some significant layoffs so getting a decent raise was a bit of a surprise). The problem was that it only accounted for something like 5%-10% of the 23% wage gap... if however we can already show that in similar positions the gap is only 5%-15% and differences in negotiations can make up most of that.... it seems to me that we are talking about a very tiny difference that can probably be explained by factors like taking time off for child care, not working as many extra hours etc etc
correct me if I am wrong, not sure of the exact wording but from a gender studies/HR class, it is illegal not to hire someone due to conditions - one being pregnant.
The situation came up that a huge project was coming up and the hiring manager wanted to grow the team (the project will be for a few months and will demand a lot time from everyone involved). The recruiters sent the hiring manager a women a few months pregnant - however, very qualified and great experiences. Despite a great interview, the hiring manager does not hire her due to her having to take time off in the near future.
This is basically what I've found to be correct as well. Studies that account for hours worked and compare equivalent positions instead of blanket comparing all the jobs in an industry, the earning gap decreases to a much smaller one (somewhere between 5-15%).
That's not to say it isn't a still a problem, but most of the studies out there don't actually effectively compare jobs. It's easy to say 'women in the healthcare field make x% less than their male counterparts', but the reality is that the gender dynamics between jobs in the healthcare field is skewed, and when you compare similar professions (say, Pediatrician to Pediatrician) instead of dissimilar ones (Pediatrician to Orthopedic Surgeon), the gap narrows significantly.
At this point, I've yet to come across someone who can adequately explain why the gap is that way, but in general the consensus is that women tend to poorer negotiators when it comes to setting their pay, thanks to cultural conditioning not to make waves. Don't know how true that is, as there isn't really evidence to support it.
Or we could just look at what the results tell us, which is that women's work is undervalued. You make it sound as if it's women's fault that they aren't taken as seriously as men are. A reluctance to stand up for yourself is only a consequence of hostile reactions to women speaking out.
Women as a group having less money and more precarious employment than men as a group is as much of a problem as women being paid less in comparison to men of similar situations. Saying that actually it aint that bad because a large part of the wage gap comes from women working in fields with worse pay is kind of missing the point.
How so? should all fields of work receive equal pay? is my 40 hours of work worth exactly the same as the fry guy's 40 hours of work?
Using an over simplification that is not meant to sound sexist... lets say there are only 2 types of jobs, hunting and art. Lets say that for some reason... women tend to prefer art and men prefer to work in hunting. Hunting keeps people fed while art is cool to look at. Should artist be paid the same as hunters just because if they arnt there is a gender issue? Why is it that the difference in pay between these two jobs is only an issue because each gender prefers a different one?
AJ:
I am not 100% sure on pregnancy but if the hiring business can prove that they needed to avoid one of those protected statuses (gender, orientation, etc...) for a business reason it's perfectly fine for that to be the reason that they dont hire someone. It's the same reasoning for how Hooters can get away with only hiring female wait staff. So I imagine that in that case if the woman who wasnt hired tried to prove that she was passed up because of her pregnancy the business would be able to use the schedule that they needed to keep as a defense.
Jay13x-At this point, I've yet to come across someone who can adequately explain why the gap is that way, but in general the consensus is that women tend to poorer negotiators when it comes to setting their pay, thanks to cultural conditioning not to make waves. Don't know how true that is, as there isn't really evidence to support it.
As unpopular an opinion as this may be what if testosterone plays a part in why men earn more. It is called the "pride hormone" given that it has been shown to boost confidence something that would theoretically lead to more men pursueing raises/promotions. Comparing two individuals male/female you would see little difference but across the whole population (and taking into account the huge pay increases in higher management) a trend would emerge.
Using an over simplification that is not meant to sound sexist... lets say there are only 2 types of jobs, hunting and art. Lets say that for some reason... women tend to prefer art and men prefer to work in hunting. Hunting keeps people fed while art is cool to look at. Should artist be paid the same as hunters just because if they arnt there is a gender issue? Why is it that the difference in pay between these two jobs is only an issue because each gender prefers a different one?
Here's the problem: it is a known phenomenon that in the past, something perceived as "women's work" would categorically earn less, regardless of what the task actually was. A good example is teaching. Prior to 1800, most education was by men for men. It paid well and was a highly respected profession. When women were later brought in, as students and as educators, the expected pay dropped. The reasons are sort of a double whammy - yeah, they thought the female teacher should be paid less. It also is because women teachers were enlisted to teach young girls, and people didn't want to spend as much to educate their daughter, since they didn't think female education was as important.
Even if people don't believe these things today, the two unrelated ideas have been grandfathered in. We still push more women to teach, and we still don't pay teachers much, especially when we consider their education levels. In fact, many people would say that part of the reason our educational system is failing so badly is because we have been spitting on teachers non-stop for so long. Teachers clearly don't actually deserve to be paid as little as they do, but they are, because at one point in the past it was considered women's work.
So to a large extent, yeah, you're right, supply and demand determines how much a certain type of work is paid. But you fail to account for the fact that often, supply is greater and demand is lower BECAUSE its believed to be something appropriate for a woman to be doing. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, used to justify why women really are just less productive, and thus should stick to lower-paying fields in the first place.
Or we could just look at what the results tell us, which is that women's work is undervalued. You make it sound as if it's women's fault that they aren't taken as seriously as men are. A reluctance to stand up for yourself is only a consequence of hostile reactions to women speaking out.
Women as a group having less money and more precarious employment than men as a group is as much of a problem as women being paid less in comparison to men of similar situations. Saying that actually it aint that bad because a large part of the wage gap comes from women working in fields with worse pay is kind of missing the point.
You're making a rather large logical leap that women's work is undervalued. I actually agree with a lot of your points, but I think the real problem is that culturally we still hold certain expectations for women that influence how they operate on a job or even what kinds of jobs they take. For instance, Pediatrics is dominated by women while Orthopedic Surgery is dominated by men. My wife, in Medical School, is told all the time that (essentially) because she is a nice woman she should be a Pediatrician. Nice male doctors are never told that or encouraged to go into pediatrics. Surgery in general, continues to be a boy's club. Neither are directly related to pay and instead to cultural issues.
We need to change the cultural attitudes regarding how women should/shouldn't act and what fields they should go into if we want further change. It isn't that their work is undervalued, it's that they're expected to work a certain way in certain places. Even when it comes to family dynamics, the women are expected to be the primary caregivers for their children despite working full-time. That impacts pay just as much as anything else. And while I don't agree that women should be expected to be the primary caregivers, I also can't fault employers for not paying a woman who has to take a lot of leave off for her children the same as a man who doesn't. Focusing on the employer's pay instead not the cultural problems is a red herring, in my opinion.
So to a large extent, yeah, you're right, supply and demand determines how much a certain type of work is paid. But you fail to account for the fact that often, supply is greater and demand is lower BECAUSE its believed to be something appropriate for a woman to be doing. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, used to justify why women really are just less productive, and thus should stick to lower-paying fields in the first place.
The market doesnt work that way, if people need something how important it is viewed as being will not affect the price. It would be awesome if it did work that way, we could just will oil to cost a penny a gallon.
AJ:
I am not 100% sure on pregnancy but if the hiring business can prove that they needed to avoid one of those protected statuses (gender, orientation, etc...) for a business reason it's perfectly fine for that to be the reason that they dont hire someone. It's the same reasoning for how Hooters can get away with only hiring female wait staff. So I imagine that in that case if the woman who wasnt hired tried to prove that she was passed up because of her pregnancy the business would be able to use the schedule that they needed to keep as a defense.
The only reasons I know of that an they can so No:
1. If the job required that the woman be exposed to things that would be harmful to the developing child and there are no other 'reasonable accommodations' they could make to eliminate those harmful things, they can refuse to hire her.
2. If the employer has fewer than fifteen people, they are exempt from Federal EEOC laws. There may be state laws that also say they cannot refuse employment on that basis, but with fewer than fifteen people, they are not beholden to the Federal ones.
3. If the person cannot reasonably accomplish the work that they are being hired to do because of their pregnancy, they can also be denied employment on that basis for the duration of their pregnancy.
If none of the above apply, then the EEOC regulations would make such a situation a violation of anti-discriminatory regulations.
Here's the problem: it is a known phenomenon that in the past, something perceived as "women's work" would categorically earn less, regardless of what the task actually was. A good example is teaching. Prior to 1800, most education was by men for men. It paid well and was a highly respected profession. When women were later brought in, as students and as educators, the expected pay dropped. The reasons are sort of a double whammy - yeah, they thought the female teacher should be paid less. It also is because women teachers were enlisted to teach young girls, and people didn't want to spend as much to educate their daughter, since they didn't think female education was as important.
Even if people don't believe these things today, the two unrelated ideas have been grandfathered in. We still push more women to teach, and we still don't pay teachers much, especially when we consider their education levels. In fact, many people would say that part of the reason our educational system is failing so badly is because we have been spitting on teachers non-stop for so long. Teachers clearly don't actually deserve to be paid as little as they do, but they are, because at one point in the past it was considered women's work.
So to a large extent, yeah, you're right, supply and demand determines how much a certain type of work is paid. But you fail to account for the fact that often, supply is greater and demand is lower BECAUSE its believed to be something appropriate for a woman to be doing. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, used to justify why women really are just less productive, and thus should stick to lower-paying fields in the first place.
I think we've gotten past the "teaching is women's work" issue... The reason teacher's dont make good money is because 10-15 years ago everyone was talking about how there would be so many teaching jobs soon because of people retiring. This caused a lot of kids (male and female) to go into teaching. Then the economy tanked, school budgets were slashed, people were losing job, other people were staying at work long after they could have retired because they needed the extra money and then you get a plethora of fresh faced kids coming out of school with new degrees trying to get a job. The reason teaching pays so crappy is that for a single high school English position an hour and a half outside a metro location up here had over 400 applications. That's for a school that has somewhere around 1000 kids total for all 4 grades. Demand for teachers is down and supply is up, you also had unions negotiate for better benefits instead of wages for several years...
All that being said... I can see a point that in some cases "women's work" might have historically been cheap so people are not willing to pay more now for it... but I am kind of at a loss for a good example.
And Tuss... I am sorry but if you think society needs to wave a magic wand that magically makes art just as expensive as electricity and food I dont know what to tell you.
The only reasons I know of that an they can so No:
1. If the job required that the woman be exposed to things that would be harmful to the developing child and there are no other 'reasonable accommodations' they could make to eliminate those harmful things, they can refuse to hire her.
2. If the employer has fewer than fifteen people, they are exempt from Federal EEOC laws. There may be state laws that also say they cannot refuse employment on that basis, but with fewer than fifteen people, they are not beholden to the Federal ones.
3. If the person cannot reasonably accomplish the work that they are being hired to do because of their pregnancy, they can also be denied employment on that basis for the duration of their pregnancy.
If none of the above apply, then the EEOC regulations would make such a situation a violation of anti-discriminatory regulations.
#3 would do it in that case. The job was for a specific time period. If the person cannot work for a portion of that time period they cannot reasonably accomplish the work.
The idea of hiring based on the fact that someone "might" get pregnant should not be a consideration. It's ridiculous to suggest that there is any value in hiring an inferior candidate solely based on guessing what you think might happen in their personal lives in the future.
You might think so, but I've seen smaller companies go bankrupt because an employee decided to get three children in row, while being impossible to fire because doing so would've been discrimination.
The information / Voodoo knowledge thing also makes sense. IT firms are particularly suspectible to this, especially in positions where you need to be intimate with the server architecture. It might take years to get to the level where you can actually do the job you're expected to. Before that you're just getting paid to learn to do so, and generally waste more time from the experienced employees that have to teach you.
---------- Some other things to bear in mind ----------
A: Women avoid risks:
Something like 90% of the occupational fatalities happen to males. Women tend to choose safer jobs. I'm using this as an umbrella term, incuding jobs where it's risky to lose your job or have an injury that's not lethal, too. Or have other health hazards, such as handling chemicals. Women simply value safety more. This also shows in the amount of people who quit their job to try and pursue another with a higher pay - men are much more likely to do so, even at the risk of becoming unemployed.
B: Men work more:
As mentioned, full-time job, men work roughly one hour more. Tend to be also more willing to work from home and to skip holidays. If I'm not mistaken, Mincer Equation takes this into account. But it doesn't assume that working more generates exponential, rather than linear, increase in income. Because working more increases the perception people have of you as a good employee, and you're therefore more likely to get a raise.
C: Men and women differ physiologically: (Can of worms opened.) Men handle short-term stress better than women, and women handle long-term stress better than men. Men actually get a short-term efficiency boost under stress, but then start to collapse. Women see a small decrease instantly but don't collapse nearly as easily. Women tend to be better in languages, have better sense of smell and colour vision while men tend to be better at abstract constructs.
D: Men that are doing bad economically die:
Look at the suicide statistics. Men are much more likely to kill themselves, and considering that people that do tend to be employed in jobs that pay like crap.. Well. Men that are doing badly economically are also much more likely to get into bar fights and get themselves killed, or end up drunk driving and dying, or any of the million things that reduce their life expectancy.
Or we could just look at what the results tell us, which is that women's work is undervalued. You make it sound as if it's women's fault that they aren't taken as seriously as men are. A reluctance to stand up for yourself is only a consequence of hostile reactions to women speaking out.
Are you sure? Women are, by nature, more risk-averse. There are laboratory-controlled studies about this. See: Catherine C. Eckel - Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence. It is highly likely that this is an evolutionary trait.
This betrays a basic capitalist indoctrination. You've fallen for the idea that art, the expression of human culture, isn't worthwhile because it doesn't result in a mass-produced good a company can sell. Art is one of the most precious things that we as a species have. What would we be without the drive to create?
Art is worth what it's worth to people buying it. So is everything else. That is how capitalism works. If people have to decide between buying art pieces and buying food, they almost invariably decide to buy food. There is higher demand for food than for art, because creativity resides in a higher level of the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs than physiological needs do.
Besides, I'm pretty sure your argument is just an Ad Hominem attack: You're not addressing the situation, you're attacking the beliefs of Fluffy_Bunny. So what if he's a capitalist and believes art is not as important. He can claim that it isn't and have some evidence to back it up. Can you attack that evidence, rather than just claim that as a Capitalist he's automatically wrong?
A good example is teaching. Prior to 1800, most education was by men for men. It paid well and was a highly respected profession. When women were later brought in, as students and as educators, the expected pay dropped.
This is wrong, or more precisely this is wrong because of skewed view of what education is. Vast majority of education prior to 1800's worked on a master-apprentice basis, and wasn't very profitable. Even barring that, there was education in orphanages ran by women that wasn't all that unprofitable. See: Italy and orphanages teaching children to sing in order to raise money.
If we simply assume Universities and one-on-one tutoring as only forms of education, I believe those are still male-dominated and well-paying fields. Teaching at University level is also very respected, still.
Basic kindergarten-primary school education is paid very low because the service provided is considered non-essential. A lot of it is aimed at keeping children off of the way of adults. While it does set up a good basis for "higher" learning later on in the life, it is not considered important. Partially because it's too tangled into its' own metrics that it's hard to see the relevance of.
The claim that education is underpaid and therefore doesn't work is also a false claim: Teachers are underpaid in Finland, yet the results of the system are much higher than elsewhere. People who become teachers often decide to do so because they envision it as a rewarding field, not because of monetary gains.
My wife, in Medical School, is told all the time that (essentially) because she is a nice woman she should be a Pediatrician. Nice male doctors are never told that or encouraged to go into pediatrics. Surgery in general, continues to be a boy's club.
One of the leading causes in choosing where to specialize seems to be where people feel like they can fit in with the leading members of their field. People who believe they'd fit in are more willing to do sacrifices to continue education through hard times, etc. Female surgeon trainees often report feeling out of touch with the higher-ups in this regard, because of their femininity.
This is thankfully an issue that will fix itself over time, as some females still become surgeons, and while doing so make it easier for future trainees to continue. Important to notice that this isn't as much of a "what we expect from women" issue as it is "what women expect from the different fields". Some articles about successful female surgeons in some magazines wouldn't hurt, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This morning a local radio station spent some time getting opinions and debating the topic of the wage gap between men and women.
One of the interesting factors I hadn't heard before came from a local businessman that owns a small engineering firm. He brought up the fact that women are more likely than men to leave work to care for children. This is nothing new... but I hadnt thought about it in the context of engineering before. I work in software/hardware testing and development. After 3-4 years at my job I have a vast amount of "tribal knowledge". I have been the soul person to work on some projects... I am the only person left that has worked on some projects... In some ways I am more valuable to my company than a more intelligent harder working person would be purely because of experience in the company. I remember hearing a factoid at some point about how software places dont expect engineers to work to the level of their pay for at least 6 months to a year because of ramp up time and gaining the experience needed to be pretty self sufficient. Keeping that in mind we circle back to the debate of women versus men.... if you are hiring between two people mid 20s to late 30s, equally qualified and one is a man and the other is a woman... it may come down to how long you think that person will stay with your company. If you hire the guy chances are he's going to stay unless working conditions dont mesh well with him or if he gets a better opportunity somewhere else.... If you hire the gal those same factors apply plus the increased chance that she could have a kid and choose to not work anymore. I am not saying that it is "morally correct" or "ethical" to factor that in... but for a business that has a goal of hiring people that will provide the most value it's kind of hard to ignore this factor.
One of the things I was also surprised at is the female radio host seemed to be quiet offended at this guy's honesty. To me it just makes sense... he's hired a few women before that have gotten pregnant and left shortly after coming back from maternity leave so now whenever he sees a female applicant he can't help but factor in those past occurrences.
That being said, I think there is some merit in the "tribal knowledge" argument I just think you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
For example, I can see this as a legitimate reason for why women would find it more difficult to earn promotion if they have taken time off for pregnancy or to raise children. If you are judging between who should get a promotion between two employees, it seems reasonable that the one with more knowledge and experience would have an increased chance than one who has taken time off (for whatever reason pregnancy, illness, etc).
I totally agree with the leave part. I was trying to focus on the instance where the female then quits her job to care for her child. When that happens the company kind of gets screwed. They may have hired a temp or cross trained someone to handle the maternity leave (or just not worked on a particular project for a couple months), then the temp is let go or the other person goes back to their expected normal duties for a month or so and suddenly the company has to find a replacement. In a short period of time they have to train someone for the same job twice.
Not so much of a big deal in service fields or receptionist, factories etc... but when your engineers need to know a proprietary language, or networking protocol or niche technology... It could be big ramp up times.
For sure that's part of it. I work with a guy that was hired a year later than me and is the same age but I would be surprised if he doesnt make more than me now... why? Because he regularly puts in 60 hour weeks. He works from home constantly. I expect him to make more than me because he does more work than I do. I was not surprised that he got a promotion before I did. Now his wife is pregnant... it will be interesting to see what happens to his work schedule when he's also a father and whether or not he can still balance trying to please everyone at work and not piss off his wife.
If one parent has to quit work to look after the child, and the male partner is earning more than the female partner, it's economically sensible for it to be the female who quits.
So I wonder if that argument is somewhat circular; women earn less than men because women are more likely to leave their job for family reasons because women earn less than men.
It would be interesting to get data on couples that have their situation reversed and see if that trend holds for couples where the woman makes equal pay and greater pay.
Also I hesitate to say the pay gap is the reason that women are more likely to quit since I would assume that most couples do not work in the exact same field. Sure if both parents are teachers it's a pay gap issue... if one is a doctor and the other is a teacher that has nothing to do with the pay gap. Maybe studies would need to be separate for high skill careers versus couples working in service industries and other entry level/low education requirement jobs.
Then I must ask, who is more likely to BE in a high-skill field in the first place? From what I recall it is well-established that high-skill, high-paying fields are dominated by men, and the reasons for that are a whole other discussion of its own. Also, note, companies generally don't have as many pre-existing accommodations for men who have kids. The general assumption is that their wife will take care of the at-home stuff. Since the only accommodations available are for women only, the woman has to do more of the childcare work. And like with all corporate privileges, you're punished for ever making use of them, so in a strange way, women are worse off BECAUSE companies try to give them extra privileges. The answer, I think, is not in erasing the female accommodations, but instead to extend them to men as well.
There's two issues there, though. Across-all-jobs pay gap ('why do jobs dominated by men pay better?') and within-job pay gap ('why do men get paid more than women for the same job?').
In the case that I was thinking of when I posted, a friend is a stay-at-home dad for exactly that reason - his partner's job was better paying, so he quit his to be the home parent.
There are too many variables at this point for that to be a useful starting point for a discussion. I think we've hit a point where it's more beneficial to look at fields and regions and make the comparisons and debate reasoning on that level. For example... Professional sports! Why do male professional athletes make 10x more than women athletes? Probably has a lot to do with popularity... now you could debate whether or not it's "okay" for society to prefer male athletes but at least you can get down to that level.
I'd like to see and reason out the numbers for other fields and careers. Do women in accounting make less than men? Why is that? Is there a real problem here or is it just a happenstance of the differences between how men and women (on average) work. Are men in accounting more apt to negotiate their salary? Are hiring managers "programmed" to believe they can hire a woman for less? Are men preferred for some reason? Are men more likely to work over normal hours?
I think if society broke this debate/problem into a career by career exercise we'll get much better results and wont get bogged down in hypothetical reasons that dont apply to every career. Then we'd be much more able to discover true issues without being blinded by reasoning that doesn't apply to every field.
Also, women tend to choose safer, more secure jobs that pay less whereas men take riskier, less safe jobs that pay more.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I can tell you this is not accurate for the legal field.
Law is definitely a high-skill field, and the numbers of men versus women starting out as associates at the top 200 law firms is pretty close to 50/50 (it's 47% women). Nearly all of the major law firms pay their incoming associates exactly the same amount, so there is essentially zero pay gap at the outset.
However, when it comes to making partner (becoming a "boss" if you will, and making tons of money) women trail by a huge margin: 15% versus men's 85%.
Most firms offer both paternity and maternity leave, and do not punish an attorney for taking it. The thing is, partnership decisions are based on merit: how much business you generate, how many hours you work, and how many cases you win. If you take any substantial amount of leave, it becomes much harder to stand out on these metrics. For this reason, it's almost unheard of for men to take paternity leave.
So how do you solve this problem? Make law firms stop making partnership decisions based on merit? Force men to take paternity leave? (Many men would just choose not to have kids, that's how much money we're talking about).
__________________
One of the things that irks me about the discussion of the "wage gap" to the point where I refer to it as a myth is the costs men pay to bring home that extra money is ignored. The "wage gap" is presented as proof that women are mistreated/discriminated against when that is the LEAST relevent factor.
This is the reason why people use a method called Mincer Equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincer_equation
Simply looking at wage gaps is practice considered outdated by researchers for a while now.
The general mincer equation result is that women earn less for being a women but it's nowherer near what the wage gap suggests. A coworker of mine did her graduation finishing paper on this and found that the result was that women, with all variables controlled, earn about 5% less then men across the panel in Brazil.
The literature speculate on three possible reasons:
i) The one you brought up in this thread. Women have a bigger chance to take her time off due to pregnancy and children. That risk is rationalized by employers who will favor men over women in the selection of jobs that requires greater levels of commitment but pay more.
ii) Pure cultural differentiation. Society irrationally consider women less productive and the labor markets reflect that.
iii) Some researchers found that depends on the job, women earn even more cepteris paribus (such as marketing). The idea is that women and men are different physiologically and depending on the job one will be more productive. The differentiation across the panel is due the composition of the economy - there is a greater number of jobs were men produce more.
I think the three approach each have it's merit own and requires more research.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
This is basically what I've found to be correct as well. Studies that account for hours worked and compare equivalent positions instead of blanket comparing all the jobs in an industry, the earning gap decreases to a much smaller one (somewhere between 5-15%).
That's not to say it isn't a still a problem, but most of the studies out there don't actually effectively compare jobs. It's easy to say 'women in the healthcare field make x% less than their male counterparts', but the reality is that the gender dynamics between jobs in the healthcare field is skewed, and when you compare similar professions (say, Pediatrician to Pediatrician) instead of dissimilar ones (Pediatrician to Orthopedic Surgeon), the gap narrows significantly.
At this point, I've yet to come across someone who can adequately explain why the gap is that way, but in general the consensus is that women tend to poorer negotiators when it comes to setting their pay, thanks to cultural conditioning not to make waves. Don't know how true that is, as there isn't really evidence to support it.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The situation came up that a huge project was coming up and the hiring manager wanted to grow the team (the project will be for a few months and will demand a lot time from everyone involved). The recruiters sent the hiring manager a women a few months pregnant - however, very qualified and great experiences. Despite a great interview, the hiring manager does not hire her due to her having to take time off in the near future.
AKA, the mommy track.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
How so? should all fields of work receive equal pay? is my 40 hours of work worth exactly the same as the fry guy's 40 hours of work?
Using an over simplification that is not meant to sound sexist... lets say there are only 2 types of jobs, hunting and art. Lets say that for some reason... women tend to prefer art and men prefer to work in hunting. Hunting keeps people fed while art is cool to look at. Should artist be paid the same as hunters just because if they arnt there is a gender issue? Why is it that the difference in pay between these two jobs is only an issue because each gender prefers a different one?
AJ:
I am not 100% sure on pregnancy but if the hiring business can prove that they needed to avoid one of those protected statuses (gender, orientation, etc...) for a business reason it's perfectly fine for that to be the reason that they dont hire someone. It's the same reasoning for how Hooters can get away with only hiring female wait staff. So I imagine that in that case if the woman who wasnt hired tried to prove that she was passed up because of her pregnancy the business would be able to use the schedule that they needed to keep as a defense.
As unpopular an opinion as this may be what if testosterone plays a part in why men earn more. It is called the "pride hormone" given that it has been shown to boost confidence something that would theoretically lead to more men pursueing raises/promotions. Comparing two individuals male/female you would see little difference but across the whole population (and taking into account the huge pay increases in higher management) a trend would emerge.
Here's the problem: it is a known phenomenon that in the past, something perceived as "women's work" would categorically earn less, regardless of what the task actually was. A good example is teaching. Prior to 1800, most education was by men for men. It paid well and was a highly respected profession. When women were later brought in, as students and as educators, the expected pay dropped. The reasons are sort of a double whammy - yeah, they thought the female teacher should be paid less. It also is because women teachers were enlisted to teach young girls, and people didn't want to spend as much to educate their daughter, since they didn't think female education was as important.
Even if people don't believe these things today, the two unrelated ideas have been grandfathered in. We still push more women to teach, and we still don't pay teachers much, especially when we consider their education levels. In fact, many people would say that part of the reason our educational system is failing so badly is because we have been spitting on teachers non-stop for so long. Teachers clearly don't actually deserve to be paid as little as they do, but they are, because at one point in the past it was considered women's work.
So to a large extent, yeah, you're right, supply and demand determines how much a certain type of work is paid. But you fail to account for the fact that often, supply is greater and demand is lower BECAUSE its believed to be something appropriate for a woman to be doing. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, used to justify why women really are just less productive, and thus should stick to lower-paying fields in the first place.
You're making a rather large logical leap that women's work is undervalued. I actually agree with a lot of your points, but I think the real problem is that culturally we still hold certain expectations for women that influence how they operate on a job or even what kinds of jobs they take. For instance, Pediatrics is dominated by women while Orthopedic Surgery is dominated by men. My wife, in Medical School, is told all the time that (essentially) because she is a nice woman she should be a Pediatrician. Nice male doctors are never told that or encouraged to go into pediatrics. Surgery in general, continues to be a boy's club. Neither are directly related to pay and instead to cultural issues.
We need to change the cultural attitudes regarding how women should/shouldn't act and what fields they should go into if we want further change. It isn't that their work is undervalued, it's that they're expected to work a certain way in certain places. Even when it comes to family dynamics, the women are expected to be the primary caregivers for their children despite working full-time. That impacts pay just as much as anything else. And while I don't agree that women should be expected to be the primary caregivers, I also can't fault employers for not paying a woman who has to take a lot of leave off for her children the same as a man who doesn't. Focusing on the employer's pay instead not the cultural problems is a red herring, in my opinion.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The market doesnt work that way, if people need something how important it is viewed as being will not affect the price. It would be awesome if it did work that way, we could just will oil to cost a penny a gallon.
The only reasons I know of that an they can so No:
1. If the job required that the woman be exposed to things that would be harmful to the developing child and there are no other 'reasonable accommodations' they could make to eliminate those harmful things, they can refuse to hire her.
2. If the employer has fewer than fifteen people, they are exempt from Federal EEOC laws. There may be state laws that also say they cannot refuse employment on that basis, but with fewer than fifteen people, they are not beholden to the Federal ones.
3. If the person cannot reasonably accomplish the work that they are being hired to do because of their pregnancy, they can also be denied employment on that basis for the duration of their pregnancy.
If none of the above apply, then the EEOC regulations would make such a situation a violation of anti-discriminatory regulations.
Hooters seems a bit different scenario?
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
I think we've gotten past the "teaching is women's work" issue... The reason teacher's dont make good money is because 10-15 years ago everyone was talking about how there would be so many teaching jobs soon because of people retiring. This caused a lot of kids (male and female) to go into teaching. Then the economy tanked, school budgets were slashed, people were losing job, other people were staying at work long after they could have retired because they needed the extra money and then you get a plethora of fresh faced kids coming out of school with new degrees trying to get a job. The reason teaching pays so crappy is that for a single high school English position an hour and a half outside a metro location up here had over 400 applications. That's for a school that has somewhere around 1000 kids total for all 4 grades. Demand for teachers is down and supply is up, you also had unions negotiate for better benefits instead of wages for several years...
All that being said... I can see a point that in some cases "women's work" might have historically been cheap so people are not willing to pay more now for it... but I am kind of at a loss for a good example.
And Tuss... I am sorry but if you think society needs to wave a magic wand that magically makes art just as expensive as electricity and food I dont know what to tell you.
#3 would do it in that case. The job was for a specific time period. If the person cannot work for a portion of that time period they cannot reasonably accomplish the work.
You might think so, but I've seen smaller companies go bankrupt because an employee decided to get three children in row, while being impossible to fire because doing so would've been discrimination.
The information / Voodoo knowledge thing also makes sense. IT firms are particularly suspectible to this, especially in positions where you need to be intimate with the server architecture. It might take years to get to the level where you can actually do the job you're expected to. Before that you're just getting paid to learn to do so, and generally waste more time from the experienced employees that have to teach you.
---------- Some other things to bear in mind ----------
A: Women avoid risks:
Something like 90% of the occupational fatalities happen to males. Women tend to choose safer jobs. I'm using this as an umbrella term, incuding jobs where it's risky to lose your job or have an injury that's not lethal, too. Or have other health hazards, such as handling chemicals. Women simply value safety more. This also shows in the amount of people who quit their job to try and pursue another with a higher pay - men are much more likely to do so, even at the risk of becoming unemployed.
B: Men work more:
As mentioned, full-time job, men work roughly one hour more. Tend to be also more willing to work from home and to skip holidays. If I'm not mistaken, Mincer Equation takes this into account. But it doesn't assume that working more generates exponential, rather than linear, increase in income. Because working more increases the perception people have of you as a good employee, and you're therefore more likely to get a raise.
C: Men and women differ physiologically: (Can of worms opened.) Men handle short-term stress better than women, and women handle long-term stress better than men. Men actually get a short-term efficiency boost under stress, but then start to collapse. Women see a small decrease instantly but don't collapse nearly as easily. Women tend to be better in languages, have better sense of smell and colour vision while men tend to be better at abstract constructs.
D: Men that are doing bad economically die:
Look at the suicide statistics. Men are much more likely to kill themselves, and considering that people that do tend to be employed in jobs that pay like crap.. Well. Men that are doing badly economically are also much more likely to get into bar fights and get themselves killed, or end up drunk driving and dying, or any of the million things that reduce their life expectancy.
----------
Are you sure? Women are, by nature, more risk-averse. There are laboratory-controlled studies about this. See: Catherine C. Eckel - Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence. It is highly likely that this is an evolutionary trait.
Art is worth what it's worth to people buying it. So is everything else. That is how capitalism works. If people have to decide between buying art pieces and buying food, they almost invariably decide to buy food. There is higher demand for food than for art, because creativity resides in a higher level of the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs than physiological needs do.
Besides, I'm pretty sure your argument is just an Ad Hominem attack: You're not addressing the situation, you're attacking the beliefs of Fluffy_Bunny. So what if he's a capitalist and believes art is not as important. He can claim that it isn't and have some evidence to back it up. Can you attack that evidence, rather than just claim that as a Capitalist he's automatically wrong?
This is wrong, or more precisely this is wrong because of skewed view of what education is. Vast majority of education prior to 1800's worked on a master-apprentice basis, and wasn't very profitable. Even barring that, there was education in orphanages ran by women that wasn't all that unprofitable. See: Italy and orphanages teaching children to sing in order to raise money.
If we simply assume Universities and one-on-one tutoring as only forms of education, I believe those are still male-dominated and well-paying fields. Teaching at University level is also very respected, still.
Basic kindergarten-primary school education is paid very low because the service provided is considered non-essential. A lot of it is aimed at keeping children off of the way of adults. While it does set up a good basis for "higher" learning later on in the life, it is not considered important. Partially because it's too tangled into its' own metrics that it's hard to see the relevance of.
The claim that education is underpaid and therefore doesn't work is also a false claim: Teachers are underpaid in Finland, yet the results of the system are much higher than elsewhere. People who become teachers often decide to do so because they envision it as a rewarding field, not because of monetary gains.
One of the leading causes in choosing where to specialize seems to be where people feel like they can fit in with the leading members of their field. People who believe they'd fit in are more willing to do sacrifices to continue education through hard times, etc. Female surgeon trainees often report feeling out of touch with the higher-ups in this regard, because of their femininity.
This is thankfully an issue that will fix itself over time, as some females still become surgeons, and while doing so make it easier for future trainees to continue. Important to notice that this isn't as much of a "what we expect from women" issue as it is "what women expect from the different fields". Some articles about successful female surgeons in some magazines wouldn't hurt, though.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.