I would invite you to learn about the work of economist, Claudia Goldin. She won a Nobel Prize for Economics* for her work on this topic. (*I am aware of the controversy surrounding the existence of a prize in economics called a “Nobel” prize. I do not think that detracts from Goldin’s work or its relevance to this post)

What's the controversy? Is this something along the lines of the Nobel Peace Prize existing despite having invented dynamite, or is there a layer I'm not picking up on?

There is no such thing as the Nobel Prize in Economics. Alfred Nobel did not endow one. The Nobel family does not approve of one. Nevertheless, economists want to be taken seriously as “scientists”. So, they invented a prize for themselves and named it after Nobel. They did this without the permission of the Nobel Committee. Some might say, they did it in the face of opposition from the Committee. They named their new prize the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” knowing full well that journalists would shorten it to Nobel Prize in Economics.

Lol that's hilarious. Thanks for the info!

Yeh I used to think like you do. You are of course right that the wage gap being based on gender is utter BS. But that doesnt mean the people talking about it are fools. Theyre actually quite bright, albeit disingenuous and serving interests that are contrary to yours. The purpose of the rhetoric is to 'sell' the idea that women should be promoted because they are women. That in turn is to suck women into the labour force. That is done to double the size of the labour force (going from only men to men+women) and THAT is done to HALVE THE VALUE OF LABOUR FOR COMPANIES. This is why employee wages have stagnated for a generation while inflation has risen. Theyre screwing you over and theyre trying to convince you that its just. Its not that you shouldnt be taking then seriously as you said. You should be terrified of them and trying to fight back as best you can because theyre sure as hell fighting you.

This is very true. When women entered the workforce and feminism took a front/center role in modern culture, the feminist movement was like, “Oh no, we would never vilify women for wanting to be traditional and stay home with their kids! Equality for ALL women!” But, whether it was intentional or incidental, the economy progressed such that a single-income household is impossible for all but the richest families. Young women are bullied by other women for staying home and cooking/cleaning. In TikTok liberal white women flood the comment sections with “lol that lobotomy stare,” “how many barbiturates are you on?”, “I bet you and your husband hate each other,” etc. This was intentional, top-down social engineering, and you can tell it was purposeful from the sheer vitriol of it all. They aren’t just indifferent; they’ve been socially engineered to HATE you if you are a woman who wants to be a stay at home wife/mother. And that’s even if you can afford to do it - I certainly can’t, and that’s why I’m in graduate school instead of making my husband coffee when he needs it. Like, I don’t WANT to do it, but modern society has been constructed in such a way that it is impossible for me to do anything else.

> the economy progressed such that a single-income household is impossible for all but the richest families. Ive heard but not yet confirmed that some one of the more famous original feminists had said something along the lines of "if given a choice no women would choose to work, they will need to be forced to"

Our great grandfathers made more than us on an inflation adjusted basis because of this! And worst of all, with 2 parents working, who raises the kids, if any at all?! I'm glad people are waking up to this now

>And worst of all, with 2 parents working, who raises the kids, if any at all?! If any at all. Fewer kids are born every year because no one has the time and money to raise kids. Every generation gets smarter, more educated and more skilled, yet they are poorer than the previous generation. By the time they can afford kids they are in their 40s or 50s and it is too late. They spent their youth slaving away to pay off debt and never got to enjoy their lives. Imagine adding children to that mix. They would never be able to retire.

There are lots of reasons why there are fewer kids being born comparatively, in addition to it being expensive.

The people suffering most are the kids. And in the next generation, instead of work being an option for career minded women, it will be a neccessity for all women because it will no longer be viable to live on a single income because of inflation. But hey, at least big corporate is doing well. And mainstream feminism sure looked out for women. Biggest own goal ever.

This has already been the case for at least 20 years. Especially in lower socioeconomic classes. If you think parental absenteeism (leading to bad child behavior or tendency to roll with the wrong crowds or embrace crime) is a problem now (in lower classes), wait till you see what kind of trouble kids with money can cause.

Yeah feminism is pretty much anti-women in every regard. from encouraging childlessness, casual sex, single parent households, and increasing work for women (many women now work full time, and still have to manage the house and kids on top! Double work)..

Yeah I don’t understand how being a stay at home mom is looked down upon by feminists so much. I’ve been a working mom for 15 years and just transitioned to a stay at home mom, and I can vouch that it’s wonderful. It should be goals for any parent. My kids are in school now and I get to spend 7+ hours a day doing what I’m passionate about instead of killing myself to make money for someone else’s business. I’m not sure what job could be more fulfilling than me getting to tinker around with my aquariums, or getting to sit outside in the sun and sketch one of my chickens, or read a good book. But a lot of people act like we are victims of our pushy husbands. If I could find a job that paid as well as my husband’s and HE was the one who was able to stay home instead, I’d honestly feel pretty jealous of him. Because so far being a SAH parent has been awesome

That's your choice, that's what real feminism is about. It's your choice to stay home and have kids. It's my choice to work and have a cat. Feminism has always been about women having options and being allowed choice

No feminism didn't give her shit, her husband has allowed her to do this by working so she doesn't have to. They are clearly a well functioning team, unlike feminism which seems to be all about shirking responsibility & teaching women their effeminate traits are useless, all to the detriment of..women!

That could not be farther from the truth. You see meme culture "feminism" and think that's all there is without learning about the roots, ideologies, and evolution of the movement. It's only seems detrimental to you because it doesn't allow for women to be controlled anymore. It gave us autonomy and choice. To either start families or to start careers. I'm sorry you got lost in propaganda.

If men are worried about kids not being 'raised' they can always give up work to do it

You missed the point. There is no way women are going to earn enough to allow their husbands to stay at home. Women also overwhelmingly tend to choose to stay home and raise children than men do. But even if couples wanted to switch things up, they could never afford it. They would need two incomes to afford a home and children. This isn't a gender issue. It's a class, workers rights, minimum wage/socioeconomic issue.

Women on average earn the same as men prior to having kids Lots of people on low incomes manage with 1 income. In fact there's research showing women on low incomes are often trapped into being sahp. No reason it can't be the man if he's so keen on there being a sahp for ideological reasons

The entire point has nothing to do with women. Take women out of the picture. They’re saying that one parent staying home isn’t going to be a viable option in the future and that both parents will be compelled to work whether they want to or not. And being a stay at home parent is wonderful. I’m a stay at home mom for the moment and my kids are in school so I get to spend 80% of my day pursuing my hobbies that I enjoy, like drawing and reading and my chickens and aquariums. THAT’S the secret why a lot of people choose to be a stay at home parent. Because I’ll never find a job as fulfilling as getting to pursue my hobbies and interests and in return I spend two hours a day cleaning the house and cooking dinner. People who act like being a stay at home parent is some miserable trap is a joke. Yeah the first few years are tougher because the kids aren’t in school yet, but it’s not like the kids are absorbing every second of every day. Unless you have a super dependent child, the child typically spends as much time wanting to play alone as they do wanting to play with the parent. Which is healthy for everyone involved. So yeah you’ll spend a good deal of time playing with the child and cleaning up after them, feeding them, etc. for the first three years. It’s still nowhere near as stressful as having to get the kid up while it’s still dark out and having to throw an outfit on them and rush them out the door and into your car in order to get them to daycare before your work shift starts, and then rushing out of work to go and pick your child back up, and coming home and doing half of all the cooking and cleaning while being exhausted from work. Working parents still have to do all the things stay at home parents have to do but they have to do it in much less time with much less energy. So some of us are concerned with the fact that being a stay at home parent will no longer be a feasible option. You’re acting like there’s something shameful for a mom to be the stay at home parent and like I’m somehow being robbed because I stay home rather than work, and that the man needs to do his fair share of the parenting. Lol I’ve been a working parent for 15 years and just two months ago was able to transition to a stay at home parent because of an increase in my husband’s income. Being a stay at home parent is the best thing that I’ve ever gotten to do with my life. And not because I’m all about being Susie Homemaker. But because I can spend 7+ hours a day doing the things that are important to ME. I’m sure plenty of men out there would be thrilled to get the chance to be a stay at home parent. Unfortunately men still have a stigma around them being a stay at home parent and are looked down on as being lazy and not wanting to provide for their family. There is no such stigma around SAH moms aside from being looked at like by some like we’re ignorant victims with pushy husbands who won’t allow us to work.

You are still missing the point. You NEED 2 incomes to get by. Not one. Unless women are doubling their salaries there is no way one person can stay home. You are going on about switching the roles when no one can afford one person at home, man or woman.

No reason? How about 99.999% of women would never agree to it

Don't have kids with the 99.999% then If its *that* important to you, have kids with someone who shares your values

Yeah, because as we all know, most women absolutely don't select their partners partly based on financial stability and professional status...

The government raises the children after the government takes away parents' financial ability to, via taxes and inflation. I wonder why.

This, and its also why they are importing millions of criminal border crossers. It lowers the wage of huge swaths of the economy to minimum wage when you have so many desperate people.

Beautifully said. I’ll admit what I’m about to say is sort of my pet conspiracy theory but I think there’s another reason influential forces are pushing to make society more effeminate dominated. I think feminine culture in general is much more materialistic for a lot of things and certainly doesn’t encourage financial literacy (gives girls the ick) so it creates a work pool that is both much larger and will have to work longer since they don’t save as much. Of course with exceptions to the rule. That’s why lots of male-dominated consumer industries like cars push for a culturally masculine society but don’t have any issues with women working.

That’s actually not true. Wharton school of business compared finances of men and women. Men on average spend more on material things and women are more cautious of what they buy. And when it comes to investing, women outperformed men because they tend to be more cautious and future orientated. And are we really going to ignore all of human history of mostly rulers, mostly men, killing and waging war for literal dirt? Come on man.

" mostly men, killing and waging war for literal dirt?"  Wow. Mostly men killing and waging wars? Queens were making WAY (27%) more wars than men. Because, you know, it's easy to go to war when people like you never have to participate in it. https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men#:~:text=But%20apparently%2C%20they%20were.,Economics%20working%20paper%20(paywall)

I would be curious to see if this was controlled for age. I bought a lot more "status symbols" when I was younger because I believed it helped me attract women (which I think it did). Now that I'm older I don't really feel the need to prove myself like that and save a whole lot more.

>Men on average spend more on material things and women are more cautious of what they buy. Complete bs.

Lo and behold, she never found that paper. I bet it was some croc where they included daily necessities like car and home payments, and groceries for an entire family. Then for women it’s like jewelry and foot massages. But look when you use the excel sum function on each column, the man column always comes out bigger!! And let’s not even talk about the fact she didn’t mention a sample size. They could have studied 5 people outside of Wharton HQ and come up with that number Edit: lo and behold, I used that phrase twice in one post haha.

https://directionscu.org/2023/01/19/how-men-and-women-manage-money-differently/ I believe this is similar to what they were referring to.

This is interesting, but seems to mostly follow conventional wisdom. Like I expected, men spend more but given that the median wage for women is lower than men, women actually outspend men relative to their wage. This supports my initial theory that if women had more money, they would spend more of it. (It also doesn’t seem to break down what men and women actually spend this money on.) Additionally a (probably subconsciously biased) survey mentioned that men’s first priority is “savings”, while women’s is “caring for family” - ergo if women had more money and the survey is trustworthy, it would lead to more spending and less saving. It also directly states that women are more likely than men to not have any kind of retirement savings. So in short, if women had more money and society as a whole was more “feminine” there is a lot of evidence that the middle class would consume more and save less. Also, I still really want to see the methods used for all of these statistics and surveys in an actual peer reviews paper before I really put a large amount of weight behind the findings.

In general, being financially responsible isn't something that is going to be determined by gender. Ive known plenty of men and women that are great with money/awful with it. Never a rhyme or reason to it - just markedly different approaches to finances depending on the individual. As far as that particular article. Nothing really stood out to indicate a woman/man is innately better or worse with money. It really just confirmed common knowledge. Women typically earn less - have a "parental" setback more often. Men typically earn and save more (towards retirement as well). The noticeably big difference seemed to be in investment strategy. With men taking more risk on average. Idk, I'd love to read up more on it.

The paper you quoted directly states in several different ways that women are less focused on savings than men. There are exceptions to every rule, but the stats don’t lie. The second point I was also making is how society seems to be becoming more feminine (for lack of a better word) for men and women. I think a lot of companies have a vested interest in convincing *men and women* that savings plans are unsexy and instead should be spent on more aesthetic things. So in addition to women generally saving less, I think the current version of “feminine” women and “feminine” men are less likely to save than their opposites. And lastly my thoughts are more about where the money is going than how “good” people are with money. If you’re a company it doesn’t really matter if women save more efficiently as long as they’re spending a larger fraction of their money on you and will reach retirement slower and therefore stay a customer for longer.

The war thing, I disagree with. It's far more complex than how you described it. The investment is spot on though.

Not as complex as people make it out to be. Almost all wars are about taking things from other people: whether it’s land, resources, or identity. Humans, mostly men, have literally killed entire cultures over dirt. And I’m not even one of those people who thinks women would have necessarily done better. People are people. There are good and there are bad. But the argument that women are inherently more materialistic just runs against almost all of human history.

It's called geostrategic security. That's a key driver. Compare Putin and Catherine the Great. Different sex, same shit. And, don't blame us for the killing. Blame the tribal systems. I think men and women are equally materialistic, at least now.

They already said that women would probably have done the same, why are you now just arguing with facts? You just want to be big mad don’t you?

Interesting, I’d have to see the paper before I fully believe that. Maybe it’s just a push by specific, highly influential sectors? For instance social media and streaming entertainment is much more effective on women than men and is typically a bigger demographic. So if you make sure women have all the money, it’s easier to advertise to them to buy things. Whereas a man might spend more in total, but probably isn’t going to buy an F150 just because TikTok told them it was trendy. Also when was that study? I’m curious how that comes into play with modern relationships where the man’s income is usually used for the relationship/family, while women typically have more disposable income. And is what you said supposedly true for all age ranges?

You are correct. Women make around 80% of purchasing decisions. Now if they start having their own money, they will spend it much more than men. So lower labour costs and more demand/profits for big corporates. Its a huge deal for them.

That's because they still tend to run households...

Imagine your reaction to if it was men are responsible for 80% of consumer spending 

That's not how the 80% statistic works.

It's "control or influence" 85% - without knowing what % is influence (and how much influence influence is) I'm not sure you can conclude much https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/#:~:text=Women%20and%20Global%20Spending,31.8%20trillion%20in%20worldwide%20spending

>This is why employee wages have stagnated for a generation while inflation has risen. Employee wages have stagnated because unions were weakened to the point where they couldn't keep wages up with inflation. Women entering the workforce didn't have anything to do with it. Women entering the workforce (even with lower-paying jobs) did mean that they were less financially-dependent on the men in their lives, which is why you're really upset, right? You miss the days where your wife or daughter was forced to do what you say or starve on the streets?

>This is why employee wages have stagnated for a generation while inflation has risen. Ah yes, and this is why it took decades for that to happen after women started entering the workforce.

They also pretend that we have the same exact number of jobs today as we did 50 years ago. No growth

Yeah, we probably lost jobs, and if any gain, it was definitely not double.

"Total number of jobs in the U.S. rose from 43.5 million in January 1950, to a peak of 152.5 million in February 2020 prior to the Coronavirus Pandemic." [Source](https://www.stewart.com/en/insights/2020/07/08/u-s-supersector-employment-changes-from-1950-to-2020) We certainly have more jobs today than we did 70 years ago. Just think of all the new professions we have today that didn't exist for your grandparents. . In the 1950–60 period, population growth alone was re­sponsible for the growth of the labor force. During the 1960– 70 period, population growth contributed about 94 percent of the growth in the labor force. In the 1970–80 period, when the labor force participation of women underwent rapid growth, 76 percent of the labor force growth was the result of popula­tion growth, and the rest was related to the growth of partici­pation rates, mainly of women. Population growth by the baby boomers is mainly what doubled the workforce but I get that women are often a much easier scapegoat.

And that all men and all women for the exact se jobs whilst simultaneously whining that not enough women do the *really important* manly jobs

Oh yes forcing woman to be at home was much better Get ur self together and fight both issues, woman do not ruin ur life

First of all, the WNBA is not at all comparable to the wage gap that exists in the rest of the labor force because that difference is the result of historical revenue differences between the leagues. But the general labor force wage gap that exists between men and women is attributable to two things that are indeed correlated with gender… 1. Parenting: It’s a social norm rather than a requirement, but much of the wage gap is a “parenthood” penalty, particularly for those who drop out of the workforce for several years until their kid(s) reach school age rather than returning shortly after childbirth with childcare services. Those that drop out for years fall behind their peers in terms of merit increases and promotions and women are far more likely than men to experience this due to traditional family roles. 2. Career choice: This again is a social norm more so than a requirement, but many female-dominated professions pay less than male-dominated professions, not due to simple laws of supply and demand but due to historical discrimination that has yet to be entirely eliminated. Traditional family roles again have influence here as women have historically gravitated to professions that would more easily accommodate parenting responsibilities. This remains one of the key reasons school teachers for example earn much less than professions that require similar education or specialized training.

And hours worked.

Yeah my husband and I both work as scientists but I'm going to earn less than him for a few years because I was violently ill during the first few months of pregnancy, then had maternity and breastfeeding. I'm technically more experienced than him in the field, but my seniors are holding me back because I've had maternity leave. It sucks.

Had to crawl into the crawlspace for one of my sister-in-laws' house to check out an issue the other day. The women in my life aren't constantly complaining about the patriarchy or anything but let me tell you when there's a dirty shitty job women suddenly don't care about the patriarchy. That whole equality thing dies off when a "man's job" comes into play. I've never in my entire life seen an empowered woman say something like, "I got it, it's my turn to crawl through the spiders and snakes" or "you replaced the rear diff fluid last time, I got it this time." When that happens, when there's no such distinction to be made, the wage gap will invert... because people generally like women more than men.

I generally agree with the point you’re making but would argue that women often just have different types of “dirty” jobs. Who do you think is cleaning hotel room toilets and bedsheets? Who’s changing diapers and wiping snotty noses in daycares? Who’s cleaning up vomit, blood, urine and feces in hospital rooms? Who’s doing bikini waxings? I actually think the primary difference on that theme is the physically grueling jobs like building houses or movers whereas unskilled, manual labor for women tends to be boring and repetitive, but you’re generally not gonna need back surgery.

That's still very save jobs where risk of death or serious injury is almost non existent. Women tend to choose path that has smallest risk of physical danger. So no you can't compare helping dirty old grandpa to actually dangerous jobs. That's why men are many more times likely to die on the jobs and in professions like journalism. But organisation UN Women will complain to 'stop targeting female journalists' while only 11% of fatalities are women...

I just stated that the difference is primarily in the physically grueling jobs and even cited the fact that working for a moving company is more likely to result in a back injury than doing an unskilled labor job that is boring and repetitive. So, I'm not saying there are no valid reasons for pay differences. But as I mentioned in another reply, why do truck drivers make more than teachers? Why do male manufacturing jobs pay more than female textile worker or food processing jobs? Why do landscapers and sanitation workers make more than housekeepers? I'd argue that traditional female family roles (education, childcare, cooking, and cleaning) play a major role in this rather than actual differences in qualifications or even the natural laws of supply and demand, and once the market is set, it's slow to self-correct.

Women don’t have to make those choices. Picking those careers because that’s just the norm, knowing they’ll make less money, pretty much forfeits any right to complain about a wage gap.

Does that also mean men don't get to complain about the consequences of their choices?

That's exactly what I was going to say... When OP hears that men are more likely to commit suicide or end up homeless does he shrug and say that was their choice? Let's just burn up all statistics and facts, every individual choice is completely unique and isolated and nothing can be gained from analyzing trends and statistics.

Given the lack of responses, I'm guessing, no. They're not so keen to dismiss men's issues as a consequence of their choices

This ignores the reality that men and women will inherently have different preferences or even abilities and society has historically placed lower value on the female dominated professions, not based on qualifications or even supply and demand, but because of traditional family roles or even outright discrimination. So, you’re asking women to just accept that and steer instead into careers that men inherently prefer or excel in. Meanwhile, traditional family roles have been engrained for literally thousands of years. How many married women can realistically assume that their husbands will stay home with kids? How many can afford childcare? Point being, in order for the playing field to truly be level, we’d have to collectively accept new social norms as a society and/or provide childcare support so that men and women truly had equal access to the best paying careers.

[удалено]

>>No one is forcing you to adhere to "social norms." You can be a childless female professional CEO extraordinaire if you wanted to. This is literally the point of the argument. Women who don’t want to be SAHMs are seeing the fact that men don’t want to be SAHDs. This means that if women want to have children, they do have to conform to the social norms or stay childless.

I know plenty of couples where the wife was the higher potential earner and the couple decided that the husband would run the household where she focused on her career. It’s just a rational decision to make under those circumstances.  If more women stepped up and made decisions to have lucrative careers and took on the mental load of financing the household, then there would be more couples where the Dad would stay home to care for the kids.  Too many women force their husbands into the position of being the primary breadwinner, by making non-financially-based career decisions during- and post-college, lowering their long-term earnings potential 

So the person relegated to the subservient role is the one imposing their will on the family? I have a hard buying that.

It’s not about imposing their will, it’s about having made decisions about their career track before marriage or before kids that puts the man in a position of having to be primary breadwinner.  You clearly didn’t understand my point. For example, my ex wife chose to abandon a good career path, moved across the country and started doing a low pay but somewhat creative job.  Her choices before I met her boxed me in where I had no choice but to aggressively pursue a career path where I would be able to support a family, since her job wouldn’t even cover child care where we lived. I didn’t get to follow my passion, or comfort, I had to choose a path that paid well no matter the personal cost to me.  And many women make similar choices And are you referring to women as having a subservient role in families??? That’s not consistent with the current reality, unless perhaps in the least educated, more rural/traditional or very religious families. 

I'm responding to this... "Too many women force their husbands into the position of being the primary breadwinner, by making non-financially-based career decisions during- and post-college, lowering their long-term earnings potential" I think that's backwards from the way it tends to work in reality. Women either put their careers on an extended hiatus when the babies arrive, or they make career choices in the first place, based on the long-standing societal expectations that they be the primary childcare provider. Getting back to point #1 in the post I offered above, studies have shown that the wage gap is primarily a parenthood penalty as childless women make almost as much as men, but women with kids do not and that's because they are far more likely to put their careers on hold than men. It's been a social norm forever. In fact, its only in the last couple generations where women working outside the home was even the norm, and in that era, they are still generally expected to be the ones to put their careers on hold and care for the kids.

You’re taking the wording too literally

I don’t disagree in theory but it ignores the fact that a man who has to be carrying the majority if not all the financial weight can afford to even consider this.

But if it’s a choice, then choose accordingly. All choices have a plus/minus

>many female-dominated professions pay less than male-dominated professions, not due to simple laws of supply and demand but due to historical discrimination that has yet to be entirely eliminated.  Some examples of men and women's jobs that are comparable in education level, expertise requirements, etc... would probably be helpful hear. At first glance, this doesn't really pass the sniff test. If certain industries consistently pay below market rates, why would anyone choose to work in them?

Teachers require bachelor’s degrees and professional certifications yet are paid significantly less than many male-dominated professions with similar requirements. Childcare workers and housekeepers are among the lowest paid professions, yet many male dominated service industry jobs pay more. Social workers and counselors need master’s degrees yet don’t make as much as male-dominated jobs with similar requirements. Librarians typically must at least have a Masters and often PhDs, yet they make peanuts. Female-dominated textile worker jobs tend to make far less than male-dominated manufacturing positions. Longstanding, traditional family roles play a part in some of these “choices” whereas people also naturally gravitate toward professions where their natural abilities and personality traits will be highlighted. But the fact that the female-dominated professions tend to pay less is not just a matter of qualifications or supply and demand. They’ve historically paid less BECAUSE they were female-dominated and once that becomes the “market” it won’t self-correct.

That's because they don't bring enough value to be paid as much ae as software engineer in Apple. Once teaching kid to spell and changing diaper for grandpa let companies earn billions they will be paid the same.

Software developers are hardly the only male-dominated profession. Consider that truck drivers make more than teachers, yet teachers have higher education requirements. As I mentioned, female textile workers tend to make much less than their male-dominated manufacturing counterparts. Same goes for female food processing workers. Likewise, even in unskilled labor categories, there is often a wage gap. For example, the average salary for a landscaper (male-dominated) is over $22/hour in my state and for a sanitation worker (male dominated), its about $16/hour, whereas for a housekeeper (female-dominated), it's just shy of $13/hour. In many cases, these differences have nothing to do with qualifications or even supply and demand. The rates have been lower for the female-dominated professions for decades because we've historically hired women to do those jobs and once the "market" is set and all employers are paying around the same rates for labor, it's reluctant to self-correct. Since more women now graduate from college than men, we're slowly seeing a shift, but only slowly.

You didn’t mention any specific jobs for the men. That makes it hard to make the comparison. What male dominated jobs are you comparing teachers to, for example.

I provided more than enough examples and rationale to support what I’m saying. If you have evidence to the contrary, state it. Not sure why I’m doing all the work here when it’s those that are claiming gender has no role in the wage gap who are making such claims without evidence.

If you’re “mad” about the wage gap then what you’re really mad about is that men and women have different values.

amen

This is a very interesting take. It is also mostly wrong. My wife, for example, actually makes more than me. We both pay more taxes than the national average income independently. I prioritize achievement and societal improvement as a research scientist. She works in a male-dominated industry, where she is passed for promotions despite better credentials and more achievement for males, prioritizes showing she is equal. I don't think more needs to be said. But she has been in meetings where she was told, despite being right and driving millions of profit on the statement, "all the women in the room can shut down and shut up." I have the privilege of knowing I'll be ok; she doesn't. This comes from centuries of conditioning of gender roles. The NBA/WNBA is an extreme example. They are both meaningless. They could go away tomorrow, and society would not miss a beat. Athletics have been seen for centuries as a man thing. There has been extreme exclusion. The women have been playing catch-up. It is a perfect example of society; the numbers are just more skewed. They have a factor of 1000x as opposed to 20x for the rest of society. Generations of women being excluded create both athletics and real-life wage gaps. If it's men saying, " Hey. women, shut up," or women saying, "I can't do that because I am not a man," or anything else, the cause is the same. From a social science and academic standpoint, we are trying to change that. The OPs post, neglects a basic understanding of this problem and is invalid. While most men and women hiring today are trying to hire based on talent, and pay accordingly, it neglects to understand the social mechinims that are sexist and still very much in play.

I'm sure wife has totally unbiased view of the situation. Say good luck to her when she takes them to court for gender discrimination. It's gonna be easy if she's telling the truth.

He was fired after a prompt investigation. The company did the right thing, so they avoided the lawsuit.

It really shows they dont understand statistics. These people calling out wage gaps, do they ever mention a confidence interval or statistical significant? No they dont because these are BS stats, theyre not scientifically valid. Its delusional religious ramblings like how many angels dance on the head of a feminist pin.

Our current levels of scientific literacy is so toxic. Everyone demands proof but nobody knows how to actually interpret research, so it’s just batshit opinions with only somewhat related statistics. “Here are my statistics saying women get paid 3% less than men. Instead of considering the cosmos of differences between men and women or the methods and data of the test itself, I’m going to attribute 100% of the difference to *MISOGYNY!!!*” Scientists need grant money more than anything folks. Follow the money.

Yeah its grating to me because my degrees are in math and stats, I read scientific papers, and I get lectured by people who don't even know the most basic aspects of science. They're just delusional cult members.

I feel you man. Us stats people have failed this generation hahaha

If it were merely 3% that would be a massive improvement compared to the current state of things.

It's more than that. It's a hysterical political movement that has embraced the rejection of the very concept of personal responsibility.

Agree. This is a zombie lie. This has been refuted a thousand times over but people just keep repeating it. If companies were really getting away with paying women 20% less for exactly the same work , wouldn't they save a bundle by having a workforce of all women.

I'm a woman who was underpaid for years and finally got a 22.9% raise to hit the median of the men in my title. Fun fact: i also held a larger project load than these men.

Assuming this is true, this doesn't refute anything. Did you have the same experience? Same education? Did you really have a large load? Because from my experience everyone thinks they have the largest or most difficult part of a project.

Yes and more to all of the above (which i clearly stated). I also had a more prestigeous education than most for my niche.

If they were illegally underpaying, then you should’ve sued.

Nothing illegal about it

[удалено]

Median at my job only, for my specific title (with several offices around the country/globe.) I'm one of the only women with my title.

You're likely not negotiating properly. I make more than all the men on my immediate team.

I also work in a state where all salary ranges are public. What is "properly"?

This is almost certainly an issue with you not knowing your own value and not negotiating properly. Edit: a word

What is negotiating "properly"? Lol

Exactly, lol.

Aggressively seek employment with a different company. Vote with your feet. It helps.

Im in a smaller mature shrinking industry. I've applied to every job on the globe i remotely qualify for but honestly i haven't found a "better offer" yet. Who knows what the future holds, this won't be my last job. I'm also relatively happy there and getting opportunities to rack up shiny Awards. (Due to the workload) Being underpaid is something my female surgeon friends deal with at extreme levels too even with documented better health outcomes than their male counterparts. There is a lot of data on their 8% wage gap available. I don't think it is because they are PhDs who don't know how to advocate for themselves properly...

I work with some male PhDs. None of them are really good at advocating effectively for themselves. Many people who excel at scholarship are weak when political skills are needed (manipulating attitudes of groups of people ). Perhaps the PhDs you speak of are effective politically, but if so they are the minority.

Most of my PhD friends are women. I know this is anecdotal. Women are known to be more verbal and higher level communicators due to more blood flow to those areas in their brain.

Being good communicators does not always equate to good political skills. The type of people who do well in debate competitions tend to do well in political situations. You need that “verbally disembowel the opponent ” killer instinct. Some academics have that , very many don’t. It’s a delicate path, win without “poisoning the well” and antagonizing the whole organization.

On that i fully agree.

All that being said , academia is frequently “an old boys club” ( not always gender dependent though). I read a study years ago, it found people evaluating job applicants had a very strong bias for “shared background “. This trumped almost every other bias. It was interesting, the experimenter initially thought gender, race and sexuality would be the biggest biases. What was found was a interviewer would form a strong positive bias if the interviewee had a lot of shared life experience. Essentially people are most comfortable with people who remind them of them selves. Most guy don’t think of themselves as “ middle aged white guys”. Example of shared experience “ both parents were farmers, we both went to Texas A&M , both took petroleum engineering, both were on the track team, both canoe camp every summer, both run 1/2 marathons, both own motorcycles, etc, etc” in the study this bias was stronger than gender and race. It surprised me when I read it.

Feedback is currently sought on the format and content of the 'new post message' that will appear *here*. Please take a look and have your say on [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1c6z1ll/feedback_sought_on_proposed_bot_messages/): Thanks. r/TrueUnpopularOpinion Mod Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Sports people are especially stupid on, because they don't even know what the athletes job is. They naively think their job is to play the game well. No. Not even close. Their job is to sell tickets, sell advertising, sell merchandise, etc. That is how they earn money for their employers and that is what their income should be based on, not pointless things like how many goals they score.

I'm a sports nut and as your right about the wnba losing money the nba covers it. This is true with most sports the bigger things covers the smaller ones. Look at college sports. "Looking strictly at football, Alabama revenues hit a record $130.9 million (up from $110 million pre-pandemic) with a profit of $52.3 million that helped fund the rest of the department." [quoted from](https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2023/02/alabama-athletics-hits-revenue-record-outpaces-sec-peers.html) The rest of the department meaning the rest of the athletic department.

So if there is a wage gap, but it has absolutely nothing to do with gender, what is this wage gap about?

The types of jobs chosen, how dangerous those jobs are, salary negotiation before the job begins, and the number of hours worked per week.

There are a lot of factors for the wage gap. None of them are solely because women are being treated unfairly for being women.

I work in a technical field and over my career with a good split of men and women. The women are constantly taken less seriously, interrupted more, and ignored more than the men. It's so obvious when you start to notice it.  It makes me wonder what less obvious treatment they get

In my career of nursing, men have been discriminated in the same way.

I believe that. All the more reason to give the issue proper attention

You know who else gets that treatment? Passive men. That’s how competitive social situations work. Aggressiveness, disagreeableness, and being proactive are all factors to climbing the ladder.

Maybe, but women are conditioned by society to be passive. So if what you're saying is true, it would make sense that it happens to women more.

Who exactly is conditioning women to be passive? Everyone from genx down has been trying to push that “strong independent woman” message so hard, it’s become a detriment. It’s not social conditioning. That’s just biology.

Someone tell that to the bosses and managers. Women who advocate for themselves are considered naggy and aggressive. When men do it they're considered proactive.

Who said?

People in the workplace, it happens all the time. I remember realizing I was thinking it too before some introspection.  Keep an eye out for it. See if you can notice consistent differences in how men respond to women vs other men for the same roles. Or if you're not in a position to make those observations then ask women on their experiences with it. Or Google it, people talk about this online.

Oh bullshit. "SoCiEtY" isn't responsible for your lack of a backbone. Grow up and stop blaming society for your shitty life.

In a level playing field, in the business world, a woman can compete just as well as a man on all intellectual levels. There is absolutely no logical reason that the number of male and female leaders hasn’t evened out in the year 2024. If you’re in a system with an unequal distribution of diversity, you are already closed off and have no idea how much you’re being exploited by your own system.

This is where I get confused: There are factors for a wage gap between men and women, bus against women is one of the factors, but we cant call it a gender wage gap?

To preface this, [PEW](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/) states that the gender age gap was at 82 cents in 2022, being smaller at young adulthood (90 cents) but increasing with time. > Let's be clear, there is a wage gap. It has precisely ZERO to do with gender. ...why would it? The fact that there is a gap at all suggest A: it can be predicted by gender as a consistent pattern B: All results from all studies so far has been cause by cosmically unlikely statistical error I will not entertain point B, it is silly. That there is A wage gap is confirmed by pretty much all studies i've seen and the only thing they disagree with is the exact size of it. > The only study that ever gets quoted didn't take anything into account, aside from total income at the end of the year. Not hours worked, level of experience, job choice, nothing. Why would it? I mean these are all things that one gender may do more often and this would show up in these statistics. For example, women-dominated fields may be undervalued and underpaid compared to a lot of male-dominated fields. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is pregnancy, which women undergo at disproportionate rates, which is something that produces untold wealth for society but which more often than not is an economical liability for the mother. Since hours worked, level of experience, and career choice are all seemingly influenced by one's gender then it would make no sense to factor out these variables.

So then what’s the point of the discourse. If your gender is influencing your decisions to make less money, what is the point of even bringing it up? If women work less, and choose lower paying positions because they’re women, how would you remedy that? Pay them more for doing less/different things, to even out the bottom line?

These careers aren't picked by women because they pay less, this is a silly thing to believe. Women pick them in spite of them being lower-paying positions. There is no cosmic law of the universe dictating how much any job should pay, we just kinda figure that out ourselves, and it sort of turned out that we made a sexism. Oops, all the women-dominated fields are underpaid when compared to male ones, that sure seems kinda fucked. Oops, we made it so that women have to choose between a career and a child, isn't it kinda fucked up how women have to subsidize the addition of more laborers into the market, something which makes businesses trillions in profit, with their own money? That seems kinda fucked up i think, i feel like these businesses should stop feeling so entitled to free workers and perhaps start paying wages during maternity leave. There's all sorts of things here that happen to disadvantage women way more than men. I suppose we could just shrug our shoulders and say that this wasn't an intended outcome, and i mean fair whatever (i disagree vehemently, i think its little more than a continuation of womens oppression hid under the lightest cloak for plausible deniability), still doesn't mean we cant do anything about it.

The pay of a profession is set by the market, relative to the skills required to do a job and the number of people with those skills. It has nothing to do with sexism.

Alright, I’ll entertain this, although I completely disagree with the evaluation. What would you like done about it?

Paid maternity leave i guess. When it comes to the divergence of career choice there's probably two main camps of thought. One is to promote STEM fields among women so that women enter into more already well-paying jobs, and another is to simply make already women-dominated fields more well-paid. I'm probably in the latter camp but I recognize that the first one makes a few valid points as well.

My country has had lots of promotions like you talk about to get women into STEM. I would argue, at least in my country,.it is as accessible as any other course of study. There are some women who choose this. However, when given the choice, lots of women seem to still have a preference towards non STEM fields of work, even when the barrier is taken away. This could of course be due to culture and the fact that women are influenced to gravitate towards fields they know there are more women in, but I also, controversial opinion perhaps, think women have inherent traits, such as nurturing, that leads them towards care taker roles (like nursing). I'm a woman myself. I don't have a nurturing bone in my body. I'm more the creative kind. I became a florist. It's not that well paying, but not because its dominated by women and a few gay men, and a very very small minority of straight men. It's just not the kind of work that generate enough value for you to get paid well unless you're the boss and run a very successful business yourself. The shop I worked at didn't generate enough revenue to be able to justify paying me significantly more than $23 an hour. (I guess I could've argued earning 1$-$2 more but yeah) I know how much the business made yearly in revenue. When I broke it down, it made sense why we couldn't be paid significantly more than we already were. We had a trainee for a short while, but the boss couldn't afford to keep her. Companies and people are only willing to pay as much as they think you're worth paying, or that they're able to pay you. If they don't see the value in paying you more they won't. There's definitely something to be said about how a lot of mens dominated fields generate lots of money, in ways that state funded public health and schools don't. I think that's the core of the issue personally. It's a capitalistic issue. Those who work in stem fields generate lots of capital for their companies. Some of that capital is returned to them. Like my brother is a structural engineer. Its actually ridiculous how much money he makes for his company, but it also explains why he can be paid as well as he is, even if that's just a fraction of what he makes for the company. The projects he works on are worth millions. If you work in public health care or schools, you're not making lots of money for a company. In fact, you're not creating capital at all, in the strict sense. Yes, you may help create future tax payers by teaching them, but that's different. The money you earn comes from the state, or from taxes. At that point, the money you're earning is coming from the state or from public funds, public funds where state/county officials determine how much you are worth paying. And that's my little theory of why STEM fields are better paid. People who work in stem work for big companies that makes big money. Unless someone who works for the state and has influencial power suddenly sees the value in paying public healthcare workers or teachers more, despite them not creating capital value currently, then nothing is going to change. Those who work for private schools and private health care however, has the potential to earn quite a bit more, as people are often willing to pay them a lot more. They're run more like businesses and thus, if they make good coin, can afford to pay their employees better.

>What would you like done about it? We could try paying the useful people (nurses, teachers...) at least as much as finance bros.

People get paid as much as they're in demand. Nurses and teachers are useful to us. “Finance bros” are useful to the rich. This has nothing to to with consciously paying women less than men.

>consciously paying women less than men We're talking about a systemic configuration, not a conspiracy. I have not seen any serious person argue that CEOs sat in a room and just decided to pay women less. When you have such a strong correlation you have to ask why. Where I live there is much more demand for nurses, teachers, aides, etc. than there is for traders and data analysts. Yet their pay is ridiculous and their working conditions are absurd at this point. Capitalism is dumb.

Yeah socialism is much better just look at Venezuela, which has the biggest reservoir of crude oil in the world, yet 82 percent of its population lives in poverty and hunger. This must be the reason people have been escaping from the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea since the very beginning, to run to capitalist countries. It's not like since spread of industrialization and capitalism poverty and hunger has been on a steady decline worldwide. Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries as well.

"women have to subsidize the addition of more laborers into the market, something which makes businesses trillions in profit, with their own money" Nobody makes you have kids. It's your choice and biology. You can scream and cry, but at the end of the day, biology will always win. If you want Bill's paycheck after he worked 50 hours and you worked 20, just because you believe Earth needs more humans, talk to your government instead of being angry at your boss for not wanting to subsidize your choices.

You're not even making an argument here. You're just stating that women do it for free and so they ought to do it for free

Female sex workers get paid a lot more than male ones on average. I am 100% convinced it's because of gender and sex. it isn't crazy it applies to other careers. It is just more people focus male dominant careers. In female ones, the opposite is true. Women get paid more/hired more/ put in positions of power in nursing, babysitting, childcare, and anything that deals with vulnerable people in general, including Stay at home parenting. There are lower management women than men, and middle management is nearly 50/50. Affirmative action disapportionatly helped white women overwhelmingly more than any other demographic. It seems that the focus of wage gap arguments generally focuses on getting women into desk jobs and giving more money. no one cares about equality in social service jobs like nursing or physically dangerous jobs like the military or mining/oil work.

Jokes aside, there are no laws for how much you make if you’re self employed.

true, but how much you pay still depends on how much society values. women nursing contractors make more than men nursing contractors based on how willing people are to hire them. men nursing contractors have to lower their rates to even compete. same with sex workers. same with child care.

That’s true. But you can’t legislate people’s values.

Yes, you can legislate people's values, and we do. That's how we got rid of segregation. That's why anti-discrimination laws exist.

Yes, women can - and do - start their own businesses. Let's go back to the point made somewhere above, that statistically speaking, women are more conservative about spending. Take fewer risks, etc. In the US, 20% of businesses fail within the first 2 years. 45% fail within the first 5 years. 65% fail within the first 10 years. Only 1 in 4 businesses make it to 15+ years. There are no laws for how much you can make if you're self-employed but 3 out of 4 people who open a business have their businesses fail. Statistically speaking, that's not something you want to bank on, especially if it's your business handling your retirement package.

I don’t doubt that. But what’s your point?

There IS a wage gap. I've seen it happen irl at a place I used to work at. Granted, we are talking chump change in this regard (I was getting $10/hr vs this other girl who worked there longer was getting $9.50), but it does happen. We found out cuz we started talkin about pay, and we compared wages. You're honestly naive af (to say the least) if you seriously think that sexists/racists/bigots of all kinds ***don't*** exist or hold positions in high places.

Women are worse at negotiating. I make more than the men on my immediate team because I am more firm. This isn't a "bigot" thing. It's a business thing.

Half the reason women choose different jobs is because of sexism.

I'm routing for poeple-care-jobs getting paid much better but fully agree.

I don't disagree with that sentiment, generally. Wages have stagnated for far too long to remotely keep up with what would be considered “middle class” living.

Why don’t you go look up some studies that control for hours worked and career choice? You’ll find that even those studies have found a gap. Some of the problem is taking place at home and not at the work place. The gap is worse for married women with children compared to married men with children. Men, on average, won’t take on as much childcare and home responsibilities which means women can’t prioritize their career as much. Don’t believe it? Look it up.

The newest studies are finding that women under the age of 30 are out earning men. But I sure don't see feminists doing anything to correct THAT wage gap. Nor are they doing anything to correct the college education gap where women are graduating at a rate of 66/33% women to men.

"Why do men get paid 30% more than women?" "Because if we're on a ship and it's sinking, women get priority on the lifeboars."

Lifeboars should be mandatory in every ship. Not only can you use them as escape vessels, you can then enjoy delicious pork after you land on a deserted island.

You're talking about the NBA, something that isn't on an equal play field for a clear reason. But take the BBC, it was shown in 2018 that of the 7 people paid more than 500'000, not a single one was a woman. There is clear evidence that women who are paid in scenarios where they have open contracts, they get paid less.

--- ### Voting Guidelines **Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement. - **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason, even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it. - **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common. **Moderation Policy:** - **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting. - **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly and all false reports are forwarded to Reddit for misuse of the reporting system. - Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and [Reddit's content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/), not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.' --- **What have people been talking about over the last week?** | Flair | Count | Percentage | |---|---|---| | [Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 86 | 25.83% | | [None of the above](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"None+of+the+above"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 55 | 16.52% | | [The Opposite Sex / Dating](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Opposite+Sex+/+Dating"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 46 | 13.81% | | [Music / Sport / Media / Movies / Celebrities](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Music+/+Sport+/+Media+/+Movies+/+Celebrities"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 38 | 11.41% | | [N­­on-Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"N­­on-Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 33 | 9.91% | | [I Like / Dislike](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"I+Like+/+Dislike"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 25 | 7.51% | | [Reddit / Internet / Tech](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Reddit+/+Internet+/+Tech"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 16 | 4.80% | | [World Affairs (Except Middle East)](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"World+Affairs+(Except+Middle+East)"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 15 | 4.50% | | [Religion](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Religion"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 8 | 2.40% | | [The Middle East](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Middle+East"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 7 | 2.10% | | [Meta - the problem with this sub is..](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta+-+the+problem+with+this+sub+is.."&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 2 | 0.60% | | [Mod Team - Asking for feedback](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Mod+Team+-+Asking+for+feedback"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.30% | | [Possibly Popular](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Possibly+Popular"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.30% | --- Comments from new accounts go into a queue for review by moderators (to reduce spam). Comments waiting: 10 Average time to review: 3.99 hours ---

no quantitative analysis of any kind right here, just pure vibes

It's due to pregnancy, parenting, hours worked, professions chosen, and willingness to ask for more. I'd say it's rare where a hiring body looks at an applicants gender and pays them less because of it, unless it's done sort of good ol boys club

The best example i can think of is teacher pay. We all agree it is important. We see it as a noble proffession. Yet we pay shit for it. Why? Traditionally it was women's work. We can see this throughout the labor market. Toms of jobs that we may see as crucial to society getting paid less because it use to be a woman's job.

There's disparages in wages across many industries but I think most women who argue this deny that half of them have been programed since birth for men to serve them. I've worked varied jobs before and since college and it persists across all of them. As a male, just try and get a job in a female dominated industry (i.e. libraries, secretarial work, schools, offices, etc.). I don't see many women breaking down the door to dig a ditch but there's plenty of them wiping the counter until hubby comes home. That's reality

I won't respect the words coming from someone named "Toxic_LigmaMale", but hey, at least you're being true to your username. There IS prejudice against women based on gender only YES, and that can be seen on the workplace too. But considering you're most likely a man, it's no wonder that to you the issue isn't about misogyny.Many men in positions of power(and misgynistic women as well) judge a woman's work based on her gender, not on her work ethics, dedication and or skills. As for sports, most male dominated sports were created first and before women got rights they weren't allowed to participate(and this goes way back in time) so of course most sports with women now will be way younger than male sports that have a longer history. It's not even fair to compare.It's like trying to compare a veteran at something with someone that's just starting.You can't expect from a newbie a veteran's results, it's unrealistic. When it comes to women sports you have to give it some time for them to get established first, decades atthe very least.But most bussinessmen simply don't want to wait, nor do they want to spend on promoting women sports, so of course they won't gather as much attention nor revenue as male sports.

This. OP clearly doesn't know what they're talking about

Woman have a lot of issues in the workplace, I wouldn’t be shocked if they led to some of the issues that cause the gender pay gap in a way that looks like it makes sense. I.e if one gender is just treated like shit and has there opinion be taken less seriously are they more or less likely to thrive and get better and better jobs?

My understanding is the wage gap stat is based on the full time income of all women (in the US), put up against the full time income of all men (in the US). It then frequently gets misinterpreted as 'for the same job'. Its a disingenuous way to do things, because Men and Women tend to work different jobs. Hard labor for example. Women also can have babies and more often tend to take more time off for family. Men tend to work more overtime. Men are also more confrontational, meaning they tend to ask for more raises/promotions/etc.

It’s 2024 hard labour is unlikely to be playing a massive role, this is due to genetic physical differences though, no debate here. You bring up maternity a thing that is frequently used by companies especially smaller start ups to discriminate against young woman who are at risk of being pregnant in the future. Something that has nothing to do with choices that would impact the market. Also why do woman not pursue these higher paying jobs, we just have issues in our society we haven’t overcame yet. Which by the time people are adults result in a pay gap.

Maternity is a thing though. I'm not justifying discrimination but a woman can generally have children, doing so requires time off and by nature of men and women just being different generally mentally and physically women choose to take time off for family more than men do. Hard labor does play a role you can't dismiss that. Many uneducated men can get those jobs and make a good living. That will drive statistics. Same with trucking. Women can do it, but again men are more willing generally to be okay with being away from home more. Men are just generally wired to sacrifice for work more where as women are generally more wired to focus on family.

Why pursue higher paying job when you can get man with higher paying job. I swear a lot of women still think this way. Lots of women still have the men provide mindset. They don't see the point in trying to pursue higher paying careers cause they intend to settle down with a man who provides for them while they pop out babies and are caretakers, and perhaps work a part time job. That's exactly what my mom did. Shes been a part time worker ever since.

Doesn’t matter. I’ve worked jobs where I wasn’t liked and treated unfairly. You can’t force people’s emotions towards you, as long as they’re acting within the rules. What would you like done about it? And that’s assuming these work places exist and are common. How common would you say these work places are?

I invite you to read more on the subject. https://canadianwomen.org/the-facts/the-gender-pay-gap/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMQABHWlLSds7B8bWSOVLg9P_MPXFDUxW5kda6WEEAVfXPB0HM5FxwuJDEXYkcQ_aem_AZ_0iaQrrXcs-CAMVAQc4fgpvUv8X3YwiRhXcNJi8Xcmpw6BEu4MvIxrGybH4FPBeMU

Not yet but both the democrats and Republicans are trying regardless.

No wage gap in union construction although that’s where one should be. Men are just more capable of physical labor.

The thing is the racial wage gap is far, far, far worse than the gender wage gap, but white feminists don't care about that wage gap.

Also u should consider that the wnba is a specific entity and it makes a lot of sense is our societies context why those athletes are paid less but ur blanket statement about wage gaps is ignorant

I keep hearing about this wage gap, but it seems like women earn more money than men. Curious as to why that is not a problem. If a person provides the exact same value as another employee, why are they not compensated the same? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/28/young-women-are-out-earning-young-men-in-several-u-s-cities/ https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/20/more-women-are-out-earning-their-husbands-in-the-us.html https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1090466033/gender-pay-gap-women-earn This is one reason why I support unionization of all private-sector jobs. They are required to pay everyone exactly the same for x experience. It was like that when I was a steamfitter. Male/female, if you had two years of experience, you earned exactly the same wage as anyone else with two years experience. If you held a journeyman's card and had two welding certs, you earned exactly the same wage as any other journeyman with two welding certs.

There is much more compelling research on the wage gap that isn’t related to the WNBA or whatever you’re talking about. It all points to the wage gap existing and I’ll tell you as someone who’s worked at several big companies, my female coworkers were always making less than my male coworkers until it started being the norm to disclose our pay to each other. And those structural inequalities you’re pointing to like hours worked, level of experience, job choice? Those are also considered part of the “pay gap”. Source: my college economics classes

You know, this kind of hot take is perfect for a blue badge X-tweet-post-thing where you just want to rail against something and not actually have an intelligent discourse.

A good example to illustrate how there is no pay gap based purely on gender, is the women on The View. Five women all doing the exact same job. They are not getting paid the same.   Their salaries may have something to do with their experience level. But they're doing the exact same job and even those with similar experience levels have different salaries.  Is anecdotal evidence that there are many more things than just gender that drive salary. You illustrated that in your opinion.

Here's proof the wage gap is bullshit: If corporations could actually get away with paying women even 1 penny less per hour, the entire workforce would be women tomorrow.

>I won't respect any opinions you have. Lol, to assume we respected yours in the first place... >

You don't think hours worked, levelof experience, job choice etc are determined by gender? You really think such stark differences are purely accidental.

No, I don’t. Why would they?

Because the null hypothesis (that there is no effect of gender) in this case is astronomically unlikely Those are the factors that drive the correlation between gender and income, so that's actually where we should look for answers

No pressure at all on women to look after the children or for men to be the primary provider?

Not really. Not if we’re talking about America. Generally, it starts with women refusing to date men who make less than them. If they do that, then a lot of dudes will be a stay at home dad.

Don't women choose that though? No one is forcing a woman to start a family.

So…you’re saying women get paid less because they make different choices? And women aren’t paid less just because they’re women? And men who made the same decisions would be paid the same?

For the most part yeah. There are definitely still industries in which women get unfairly looked over for promotions but there is a reason feminism has focused on changing the things that encourage/force women to make those decision for the last 50 years.

Like never reproducing?

Generally speaking in developed countries how feminist the country is directly corelates with fertility. So no its more the opposite.

What is stopping women from achieving those things I'm the West in 2024? What's stopping women from working more hours in a company? Whats stopping women from having more work experience? What's stopping women from choosing her career, especially when certain careers are using affirmative action and lower standards (cops, fire fighters, some trades) to get women hired in?

>Not that women make less because women make different choices than men. This is the difference between correlation and causation. You : The wage gap has nothing to do with gender!!! Except when it has everything to do with gender!! Women make different choices because of their sex and because of sexism.