It was International Women's Day a few days ago, and I am always interested to see what comes up in the media, as it is generally an opportunity for "man-bashing", especially around the concept of income. I saw there was one bot on Twitter that was trained on a hashtag and UK companies to broadcast the pay gap between men and women within the company.
Something like this:
Are you to tell me that a UK company has that large of a difference? Not only that, a Lingerie company? Seems interesting!! So, I had a dig and found something interesting on their front page.
This is the report.
Highlights:
96% female. In the upper quartile, it is only 15% men.
Seems the men stopped working.
You see the problem?
No?
Okay. Out of 4000 employees, only 160 of them are male. As this is a retail store specializing in women's underwear, in which parts of the business do you think the majority of men are going to work? Fitting rooms? Obviously not, which means that the men are not hired for sales floor positions, where the majority of employees likely are, and are more likely to be hired in office and management positions, which are specialized and therefore, higher paid. It is also likely that there can be investors in that group too. Should this company be called out for problems with gender inequality? Perhaps, as after all, only 4% of the employees are men.
But, this is the problem with using "the mean" as a reference point, as it doesn't take into consideration the roles, nor the demographics of the group itself. Essentially, 160 specialized positions are male filled, but even though this is a 15% minority in the upper quartile, when the 85% of women's roles are averaged out across 3840 women's salaries where they are predominantly retail staff - it is going to look pretty ugly.
It is is like a bus of 99 people who each have 100 dollars to their name having an average wealth of 100 dollars - and then a billionaire getting on the bus and us saying that on average, they are all millionaires and worth at least 10M each. Do the 99% feel wealthy?
Don't get me wrong here - I don't think that there should be any pay disparity, as I see salary from a role-based perspective - if the job is worth X amount, the person performing the role gets paid X amount, no matter who they are. Of course, there also has to be some leeway for the spectrum of "how well" they do the job, but with decent hiring practices, this shouldn't be too hard to accomplish.
But, does anyone really want hiring practices that put the best person in the position? What if 50% of the people giving advice and fitting bras in the lingerie stores were male? Same skills, same pay. Would customers feel comfortable? It is an interesting question, as there is no reason that this couldn't happen, except for the bias that people would have toward men doing that kind of role. Can't men be professionals in lingerie?
Personally, I am brilliant and picking underwear and clothing in general for women and can can look at a person and choose styles that will suit them and get the sizes right. And, my taste is great too. Shouldn't I have the same unbiased opportunity to do the job? For the women reading this, would you let a male fit you for clothing? Unlikely.
Having said this though, I am glad that the conversations about salary do come up, because it means working out processes that can remove the bias going forward. However, swinging the bias to the other side isn't parity, it is retribution. I am male, not a supporter of some "patriarchy" looking to keep women down. If anything and based on my own views about freedom and values of people, I am someone who is actually looking for systems to offer equality, but this doesn't mean at the expense of others.
No one wants equality because at the end of the day, a lot of people are going to be left out of activities. Imagine the non-gendered Olympics, everyone free to compete against everyone else. With 8 people in the finals of each event, how many women are going to be there in track and field finals? This would solve the issues with trans athletes though, wouldn't it?
Touchy subjects?
Perhaps. But it is because they are emotive that they need to be talked about to take the emotion out of it, to think clearly and logically - without bias. But, we are human, we are all biased across a whole spectrum of issues because we each have a unique set of experiences and preferences as to what we like and dislike, which makes finding a "common rule" that makes everyone happy, impossible.
People like jumping on bandwagons - but how many read the headline and how many dig a little deeper? I know that I don't have time to dig into every bit of information that crosses my awareness and no time for what influences me unconsciously, so what am I meant to do, but take a lot of it at face value? The funny thing is, for most of the headline content, there is nothing below the face, the face is the only value it has and, it is misleading - like the cover of a book.
We are all subjected to bias daily and yes, some more than others. But hyper-focusing on it doesn't make it go away, it amplifies and polarizes, creating more division and disconnection. It does the opposite of what it is intended to do, it disempowers and creates victims, not empowers and creates world-changers.
There are many aspects in this world that are not fair, as nature itself is ultimately unbiased, but doesn't care about results of individuals. And, there are many factors that influence something like pay disparity, income and investment outcomes. I have a daughter and when she is older, I hope she has a mindset that can cut through this crap and instead of spend her time on what she can't control, better understand and expand what she can influence.
She can't do everything - but I hope she learns to do what she can, as well as she can.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Great points. It was interesting to see how the statistics really played out once you dug into them a bit deeper. We know it is all about sensational headlines and clickbait though.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Yeah, this is just one of them, but I suspect that there isn't anywhere near as much disparity as they are saying. means aren't very good indicators in such things.
For sure!
"Statistics lie and liars use statistics"
That is nothing new to you. :) I don't like statistics for this reason. You can make them say whatever you want them to say, and the media does exactly that. I believe that we should all get paid for the job we do, that shouldn't be as difficult as they make it to be.
Without being ridiculous, as some will, I don't want a man fitting me with my lingerie, and I am pretty sure you don't want
meany woman checking out how your jockstrap fits. That is just being reasonable and respectable. Which no longer seems quite as important as it used to be.And then bury it with the next set of numbers, then the next.
Absolutely! and it isn't difficult, unless people focus on irrelevant differences.
You should know me better by now!! ;D
I actually missed out on getting a job in a fabric store as an 18 year old because I was a guy. They didn't even consider me or ask why I was applying. I had just won a junior fashion show for evening dresses I designed and sewed... but you know - that is a woman's job.
Haha! Pretty sure I do. :))
Seriously? That wasn't even close. It was a fabric shop! Wow! Congratulations 25 years belated! You never followed it up in any way? Now, you just upped my interest in what you did.
I never followed it up - though before my daughter was born, I did sew some stuff for her room decorations :)
I wonder what could have been if I had taken the fashion road - probably fdestitution! :D
You will never know. Just think: Valentino, Halston, Versace... Taraz.
Rolls right off the tongue.
It could work!
I wish I had the pictures from it. There are a couple around, but it was pre digital, so not many :)
Oh, you should post them. Throwback Thursday or something like that. I would love to see them!
How fun!
Well, I suppose all is gonna depend on how "experienced" is the woman fitting jockstraps on men. LoL
I think they should just get rid of the rest of the men working there and then things should equal out nicely. Very equal and everyone is happy. .. haha. The men's restroom must be very quiet place in that building. lol. I hate click bait article titles because they not only mislead the reader but mislead the public who (like you said) may not read the whole article. Sounds like you are raising your daughter right.. informed and intellectually independent.
Now you are thinking! Zero disparity or "infinite disparity" :D
I was asking my wife (in recruiting) what it is like at her work and they have zero disparity. My work has zero also. There are differences between salary, but none of those differences depend on male or female.
I hope my daughter is smart enough to think for herself and, make everyone her slave.
I agree that's not an especially helpful bot, and I wouldn't be specially targeting this company. I do wonder, though, what happens that prevents women from taking up the higher paid jobs, which I guess is the other side of the discussion to the one you are raising. It is very common that, in sectors dominated by women, in the sense of more of them, the higher paid jobs are filled by men. Nursing and teaching are good examples.
You are right, though, equality will be at the expense of someone [others], in the same way that inequality is at the expense of someone [others]. (The "other", ie not like us, may be the part of the problem, but I'm possibly getting into post-colonial theory where I am way out of my depth). The usual FUD and scarcity model comes into play, whereas, certainly in England, there is enough to go round for everyone to have a basic standard of living and the wealthiest would barely notice a dent in their wealth. Not even having to confine themselves to one luxury superyacht, rather than two. Not a good example, I know, and a different context, but still - there is plenty of money to go round.
Thank you for opening the discussion.
yes, a different question. In Australia for a couple decades, they encouraged STEM for girls and they were really successful at onboarding them into the subjects and they performed well. "Problem" was, once the time came to pick university courses... very few of them chose STEM fields. There are differences in people in many ways, people have natural preferences.
Flexibility perhaps. Women might naturally (on average) have a bias for having more work freedom for having children, whether they choose to have children or not. Flexibility generally comes at a price and in work, it often means less responsibility (management level perspective here). There are also big differences in investment strategies, with men being more risk seeking, women more likely to save - does this translate into work areas too? perhaps men negotiate differently, willing to walk away if they don't get what they want, while women might say that while it is a bit under, it is better to have something than nothing. Many potential reasons for disparity, especially when considered over the span of decades.
It would be interesting to see a high level view of the differences in how men an d women consume and spend and, what they spend on. In my opinion, it is hard to justify treating people as individuals, if they demand equality.
The gender wage gap is terrible in Korea for an OECD country. But from my personal experience, I can't think of any man over 30 who doesn't work at least 40 hours a week and easily half the women I know barely work 20 or less. When properly analyzed it is reasonable here. Also, it's worth considering men have to do like 20 months of military service which is a brutal example of sexism.
Interestingly, the president-elect ran on a campaign promising to disband women's ministry (it's misleadingly called the ministry of gender and family in English). The Internet debate here between men and women is highly toxic.
It is the same in Finland (6 months to a year though). Shouldn't the women learn how to knit? It is one of the reasons that Finland was able to beat the Russians after all - the Finns were warm enough in a very hard winter.
I think the whole conversation is toxic around these topics, which is why people read the headlines and say "See! I knew it!!" but don't have a look at anything behind what makes that headline relevant or not.
The military thing is odd, it's mostlyba waste of time. Many of them aren't even soldiers. They could have people of varying genders do any sort of public service.
It is a waste here too - a tradition from the past. Guys can do some kind of civil service instead, but most go to train. In a real war situation, I suspect it probably won't make much difference.
Division like this filters through into many factors, not only remuneration. In some instances not fair, each case has to be assessed separately not lumped together for overview.
This is not only disparity by women but men as well, feeling the knock on effect in societal change.
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 32/52) Liquid rewards.
Society seems to be focusing more and more on division - soon, 8 billion genders, 8 billion colors, 45345 trillion variations across a million spectrums... everyone expecting to be treated as the unique person they see themselves to be.
Previous years fashions revealed through clothing, style, decor, now appears you are fashionable to alter gender. Worrying fact is this is creeping into society everywhere even schools, messing with minds of children.
Division in culture, race, religion has grown exponentially over the last couple of years, where people once were eager to grow the country under democracy for all. Huge rifts now appear with bitter undertones that are not only surprising, taking one down a dark slippery slope.
In your post lays the inequality though and the vision that only men can lead. The inequality faced is that in a women's store selling women's wear with the majority of women experienced in sales, customer relations that only unskilled men can be the leaders and women aren't cut out for the job.
Anyone can do a certificate in business management but the gender dispute goes far beyond just those numbers.
Have a look at emergency services. Police, fire dept. All require no university qualifications only a few weeks training and you're close to 100k a year. Nursing on the other hand which is female dominated requires 4 yrs Bachelor, plus grad year and on going studies you walk out 60k - 70k.
Female dominated industries are paid less than male ones.
Then if we look at how work is structured women will retire with less because of child rearing now the argument is "why should I pay someone not here" why isn't it. How do we continue to support someone while they raise children.
The outlook is leading middle class and upper middle class families to not have as many children which are vital for the success of EVERY company and industries success into the future.
There's a lot more to it than just pulling apart one companies employment data.
But, a male nurse earns the same as a female nurse (all experience/studies equal). This is what needs to be considered also.
In Finland, they get a year of full paid leave and then it scales back a bit. Also, it is parental leave, not maternity, so men are more commonly taking half of that time themselves. Where there is a difference here is a chance to be promoted, however it only accounts for a couple percent in salary according to my wife, if that. Perhaps the problem is in Australia and other countries more than some.
Unless you factor in immigration.
Few things there, male - female same sector assessment can't be used as the "gender pay assessment". That's a common used assessment to denounce gender pay.
If we look at the community services and health sector as a whole it is paid less because it tends to have more women. Let's apply it to say labourers which earn decent cash for no skills or educational debt. But in that instance but in that instance people tend to value physical labour greater than emotional.
I would say though that in itself is inequality because as you raised with sports women can't just walk into a physically demanding role so many that pay based on physical demand women are locked out of.
An article was published here in Aus a few weeks ago that the business sector complained about working from home and how "hall way chats" don't occur so they can't promote workers that align with their work culture. Let's be honest when they talk about work culture wolf of wall St comes to mind.
I'll end with you're in Finland, Finland is leading in alot of these things and I won't even get started on how men are treated differently who are primary carers. I work and spend most my time raising the kids due to my wife being in a leadership role and the way I'm treated compared to women parents is totally different.
People's outlook is still outdated.
I don't think this is the reason - it is because it isn't valued very highly by society, unfortunately. OnlyFans has more women also, that doesn't mean they get paid less than the men there.
You use physical strength jobs, which is a good example of no perfect fit. While men on average will be more suited, many many will not be able to do those jobs either. There will be some women who could do the job, but percentage wise out of the female population, it is likely lower. This is why "pay for the job performed" should be the go to condition for salary.
What do you mean?
What I do now is that workplaces have to hire based on whether someone will fit in with their culture and who can collaborate these days, otherwise the unit doesn't perform well for the most part.
Yes it is, but the outdated view is being promoted by these headline articles that do not actually consider nuance. Nuance is dead in public discourse, which is why all arguments are polarized and no one is allowed to be in the center and even-handed, because they get attacked by both extremes.
Work culture in many sectors are not appropriate places for women just look at the data. In Australia Canberra (parliament house) is becoming known as a rape dungeon with many cases of sexual harassment and rape emerging.
Sports sector, business sector. What is work culture? I've worked in many places and am aware perhaps things are different in Finland.
You nailed it right there. "Not valued as much" why? How can saving a life not be valued more? Everyone valued nurses through the pandemic.
There is even data to suggest when men join an industry wages climb also.
Again though hard to gauge when I live in a different country and Finland is doing some great things.
But, is this actually the case, or is it just getting a lot of publicity on the back of a couple situations?
Because society values money. People didn't mind trillions going to pharma companies to offer vaccines, but why not divert some of that to the nurses who administer them? Maybe Pharma should contribute.
It is the same in the finance sector - the best mathematicians aren't working on solving clean energy, they are creating algorithms to increase investment profits. This is the world.
Yes, and you just nailed the inequality part of it lol 😆 no health = no money.
Wouldn't say top mathematicians are working to address clean energy. I can't speak for Finland but in Victoria I was apart of the movement for the VRET and we worked with.... underpaid uni professors to achieve it.
Just heading out for the night so will get back to it, but only 15% of the upper quartile are men. That means 85% of the probably leadership team are women. Should they not hire any men at all? In the other 3 quartile a, they are likely floor staff, service, floor managers etc, so it majes sense that in the shop, most are going to be women. Would be interesting to know what those 1% of men in those 3 sections do.
Women are likely to be more attractive and better treated than men in this regard, according to their perception , maybe
There will always be a degree of salary disparity. I do not see it ever going away. We may even see a reversal of at some point women making more than men. But I say, where is the gratitude for the opportunity to earn. The positive energy from gratefulness is invaluable and may produce better results toward wage equality than a conversation of complaining. Enjoyed the article.
In a lot of organizations, HR/ P&C are predominantly women and, they earn well. It doesn't mean men can't do the job, but it just seems to go to those who are better suited and that tends to be women.
In my country, some private companies pay different salaries to their workers without letting them know. Also, transferred personal is paid much more.
Fourtunately, my company pays the equal salary if two personals work at the same department with the same title.
Yep - a lot of companies pay on title or "level" of some kind here - so it isn't an issue really at all.
Some fantastic conversations going on in the comments here and I think like anything it's not all as simple as we'd like to make out. Every country is in a different place regarding equality as well. Growing up in 80s UK with all the talk of the glass ceiling for women in the work place, means that by the time I reached working age many of those inequalities had been overcome. Now women had the chance to move up the ladder and take on jobs normally considered male only, if they chose to. Then we realised that while they could, they weren't always choosing to, so those that did would then feel out of place in a male dominated workplace. The same went for men choosing to work in female dominated workplaces.
Something I did experience in my early working life was sexual harassment when in a male dominated workplace and raising awareness of that not being acceptable was likely the next step.
As your conversation with @melbourneswest highlighted, I think there is more at play here than sexual discrimination when it comes to failures in workplaces. The medical industry is good example. Putting aside the fact that more males choose to be doctors than females and more females choose to be nurses than males (this could be lingering from our traditions or a difference in what women and men gravitate towards with regards the amount of studies needed), it's still a great example of an over worked and under paid workforce. These people are caring for the sick and injured, often lives are in their hands, yet they are expected to work crazy hours and function with little rest and down time. Just look at what internships require from doctors! No wonder mishaps happen and the solution isn't to make sure they are better staffed so they can rest, but instead to put more paperwork and hoop jumping in place!
Correct, I've also chosen in my early career to work in female dominated industries and I have also chosen to work in male dominated industries working as Labourer, truck driver, store hands moving across to direct care work in disability, human services etc.
Work is work and from experience there is no difference to how work place stress is felt and I feel as a society we place more emotional stress on women and expect more from them in roles and pay them less. Physical labour has always been an easier role for me IMO but emotional work is more rewarding and achieves more. If you help people out of their troubles they go out and positively contribute to society through gaining employment.
I prefer physical labour for its lack of mental stress, but I think that there is still this expectation that men will be more capable due to their strength. However, I agree, emotional work can be more rewarding for the positive impacts; even more stressful if you get a negative client/customer, though. Something else that happens more often than it should in the medical industry...
You have said a very beautiful thing. To be honest, I have seen in many places that men have been given many benefits. Again in some places it is seen that women have been given much more benefits than men. To be honest, even though we have said equality, we have not been able to come to equality yet.
It happens both ways - where in some places, women are given benefits over a man. In most countries, if a couple with children divorce, the women get the kids automatically, even if they are not fit for the children.
That's definitely will be the right choice for her and a way forward to choose the right path to follow in other not fall in the aspect of what she can't handle
Let's see what she thinks about it in 15 years :)
Things are never as black and white as most of the media pundits make it out to be. So I have to agree and I remember the women's tennis argument about them making less than men. After going through the facts afterward, it was apparently different and when they changed the contract to be the exact as the men, the women revolted. It doesn't really make sense to me anyways.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Yeah, it is interesting at times when they break down what is what and realize... hey, we might be wrong here!
Have men stopped working or have women taken the jobs of men? This is a question.
In the case of this company, they hire mostly women. :)
In my opinion, men should be responsible outside the home for work, because children are required sympathy and education in childhood from mothers.
There are jobs that a woman can do when needed and necessary. The salary and alimony are for Men that must manage with it affairs of the woman. What is your opinion?
My opinion is that people can choose the work they want.
Yes, but they must choose the most appropriate work, as the work of a man is different from that of a woman
In some areas perhaps, but less and less these days. There are some roles that are definitely more suited to men than women due to the need for strength etc, but that doesn't mean all men can do those jobs either, nor does it mean no woman can - have to look at the individual.
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.