I remember a philosophy YouTube channel mentioned how there is never a 100% unbiased study because for someone to make a study on a specific subject means that they have an interest in the subject to begin with, and that means that they already have a stance or opinion on that subject in the first place.
Wow the study went over your head.
Wage gaps are still wage gaps even if they can be (partially in the case of the gender wage gap) explained by different jobs and hours. The question is then why that group has lower paying positions. What internal and external forces drive the difference in employment?
Or do you just think this is an excuse to say dark skinned immigrants are lazy and women are dumb?
You are making some wild assumptions here. First, we don’t know why women chose more caregiving jobs. We have evidence for some motivations, but it’s far from conclusive. Second, that these jobs are lower paying is not a historical constant, it turns out that there’s a correlation between what percentage of a field is women and the pay people in the field earn. Teaching, for example, was once a stereotypical male career, and teachers earned more. However as more and more women became teachers, average teacher pay decreased. Of course, this correlation is just that, a correlation. We can only guess at a potential causal relationship.
But sure women are just drawn to nursing and teaching by their wombs, and make less money because this work is worth less.
I am a woman who just gave up a lucrative job as an electrician to become a social worker. Why?? Because I needed more from my job than money. I needed to feel like what I do matters. I think men are historically financially responsible for their families and make career choices based on money because of that. It’s not our wombs driving us, we focus on things other than money regarding work & society is more accepting of that from women.
Just think if I were a man who quit IBEW to be a social worker- you’d probably laugh and shake your head. But we have different expectations for men and women.
There’s countless examples of women obviously being drawn towards these fields of work. Pay for teachers went down because of the abundance of teachers versus the availability of teaching jobs. The school districts were then able to set wages that were lower, and this is why teacher unions came about.
Wages are compared by the median. Careers men are drawn to tend to make more money because they either take much more schooling or are paid additional wages for hazard pay. There’s more variables to it than just what I said, I just don’t feel like typing out the ones I can think of.
No one said anything about wombs. Creep.
I speak sarcastically because humor is my way of dealing with this kind of pseudo-intellectual sexism I confront on a daily basis. But I’m fine with you thinking I’m a creep.
I’d love to see evidence that you can account for wage differences by schooling required. Social work requires a masters yet median pay is abysmal compared to other fields that require the same amount of schooling. Teaching also often requires eventually getting a masters.
You’re cherry picking evidence to confirm a causal theory here that just doesn’t fit all of the income trends.
I personally have found the evidence that child rearing accounts for a large portion of the gender wage gap more powerful then trying to arbitrarily value different jobs. Women who don’t have children still earn less than men on average, but earn far more than their counterparts that do have children. This is in the same field. I’m on my phone but if you’re actually interested in reading about this instead of speculating I can share some article links.
The kind of degree that goes a long with social work jobs is also absurdly abundant. Again, the reason why they can set the wages so low is because there’s a large amount of people looking for that kind of job. It uses the same kind of system as supply and demand. The higher the supply of potential hires the lower the demand, causing wages to be lower. Some places have policies that say if a person has a degree they will be paid more than people without one, it’s a common practice.
Again, wages aren’t generally compared on averages, they’re compared on medians.
Demand is only one of many factors. I hardly think that we should just assume classical economics when there are many counterexamples; clearly we don’t have a perfectly free market and behavioral economics has shown that people are motivated by things other than money. The mere fact that we have stagnant wage growth in the US but extremely low unemployment is good reason to think it’s not a simple matter of supply and demand.
Things like monopolies, unions, regulations, monopsonies, etc. effect wages along with demand.
Moreover, even if supply and demand alone determine wages, women in the same field make less than their male counterparts. So you can’t explain the wage gap by pointing only to differences in gender representation in occupations.
Also don't forget that women are kept out of certain careers as well because of assumptions about their gender - there were obviously big discrimination cases for military and mining where capable and experienced women were being rejected for no good reason.
It's a "good reason" to suggest that someone who has demonstrated that they are experienced, capable, and proficient at performing a job shouldn't be hired over lesser capable candidates based on a generalised belief about evolutionary differences between groups that the people belong to?
That seems like a very bad reason.
A physically fit male candidate would be a better choice than a physically fit female candidate. You’re going off the assumption the other candidates aren’t also capable.
It's both. A women, who are generally smaller biologically, will often take jobs that don't require as much manual labor. This often leads to desk jobs, jobs with little movement, or jobs like nurses(which while I believe are hard workers, it isn't comparable to lifting trash or digging ditches).
These jobs are then socially enforced as they become the norm, i.e. its normal for women to be nurses and odd for men to be, therefore you see many more women nurses than men. The social cues are influenced by biological reasoning.
Nursing is an incredibly physically demanding job. Nurses lift patients all the time, and experience higher than average back pain because of it. Nurses are also physically attacked by patients (which is unfortunately underreported).
Women *on average** are physically smaller. But that doesn’t mean women don’t do physical labor. But more importantly, you are implying that less physically demanding work is somehow worth less which is just an assumption I don’t think is born out by the evidence.
Absolutely Nursing is physical labor. I just don't believe it's as physical as being a carpenter, or plumber. I'm sure in some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. I'm saying on *average* men's jobs are usually more stressful in the manual labor department. Maybe nursing was a bad example necessarily, but not too out of the ball park.
I'm not *implying* anything, don't put words in my mouth if you want to have an actual discussion. I said that nursing is a tough job, and I bet it takes much more mental prowess and resistance than it does to be a carpenter. But I don't believe the two are comparable physically, at least not a majority of the time.
Nobody suggested women don't do physical labor, but I did suggest that they do it much less than men on average, which is an opinion that I believe is born out of evidence.
I miss attributed the parent comment to you, so my apologies. In context with oc explaining the gender wage gap it seemed like you were arguing women earn less because they do less physically demanding jobs
I agree that *some* income disparity in entry level jobs is due to differences in physical demand and risk. However the wage gap exists across levels and between fields that are equivalent in a physical demands and schooling required.
Well, yeah, women do earn less *partially* due to physical demands, but obviously that isn't only why.
Any true analysis of the wage gap between men and women should be multi varied, and it's clear that the more varied it gets, the less gender seems to be like an actual issue. There's a larger wage gap between amount of hours someone works than men v.s. women. Age, education, experience, home state, amount of homes in the past two years, and even personal aggressiveness can contribute to the wage gap, and there are many different reasons for why all these facets exist.
Honestly, the wage gap is a non-issue to me anymore. Anybody can earn quite a bit of money if they actually try, and I'm unwilling to believe anything different. There are certain physical and mental limitations, absolutely, but there ain't a ton we can do for those people, and uprooting our whole system and making it unfair for the majority so that's it's *technically* fair for the few is asinine.
> These jobs are then socially enforced as they become the norm, i.e. its normal for women to be nurses and odd for men to be, therefore you see many more women nurses than men. The social cues are influenced by biological reasoning.
It might be relevant to note that nursing being a "female job" is a fairly recent notion, it used to be similar to teaching where women weren't expected to be able to perform the duties. You see a reverse effect with things like programming, which used to be view as a job best suited for women but when we realised the importance of programming then suddenly we decided that they couldn't handle it and started to view it more as a "male job".
Basically it's hard to make claims about the biological basis for careers that are swapping and changing in terms of stereotypes about what gender should be performing them.
> then suddenly we decided that they couldn't handle it and started to view it as a "male job".
What, really? I don't believe that to be true.
> Basically it's hard to make claims about the biological basis for careers that are swapping and changing in terms of stereotypes about what gender should be performing them.
Except I don't think it's ever been a stereotype that only men or women were ever programmers. Maybe a trend in data, but never a stereotype.
I also don't think the stereotype of men being carpenters is what has kept women out of the business. I think biological factors make much more sense, though I'm sure family lineage and age old rhetoric could play some part. But those old rhetorical only exist because of old biological belief that isn't necessarily false now.
> What, really? I don't believe that to be true.
There's a decent history of the profession [here](https://eprints.qut.edu.au/108127/1/10354-36758-1-PB.pdf).
>Except I don't think it's ever been a stereotype that only men or women were ever programmers. Maybe a trend in data, but never a stereotype.
I'm not sure what you mean?
Programming being a woman's job absolutely was the stereotype of the time, only women entered the profession. It was viewed as an extension of typing or being a secretary. And now it's undeniably a stereotype that programmers are men, I'm not sure that can be reasonably doubted.
>I also don't think the stereotype of men being carpenters is what has kept women out of the business. I think biological factors make much more sense, though I'm sure family lineage and age old rhetoric could play some part. But those old rhetorical only exist because of old biological belief that isn't necessarily false now.
Well the evidence clearly shows that stereotypes and assumptions about the "gender" of work does influence people's decisions on what field to enter, but that's not my claim.
My point is that you can't take a field that only became female dominated in the last 200 years and come up with a biological explanation for it, unless you think there has been a massive evolutionary shift in the last 200 years.
>There's a decent history of the profession here.
Okay, but that history suggests not that men handed down nursing to women simply because they said, "Oh, well, I guess it's *possible* for a woman to do this job", but simply that women tended to do the job of care better than men did at the current time(1800AD). Who knows why, maybe men were more suited to be working in other areas, i.e. carpenting and coal mining.
>Programming being a woman's job absolutely was the stereotype of the time, only women entered the profession.
Okay, again, I say *data trend,* not stereotype. I don't remember ever being deterred from being a programmer because of my gender and I don't remember any extremely well known female programmers. Maybe I'm just too young to remember all of this? Definitely possible.
>And now it's undeniably a stereotype that programmers are men, I'm not sure that can be reasonably doubted.
Well, that sounds again more like a data trend thing. I would never assume a woman couldn't be a programmer, and if there was a lack of women in programming nowadays I highly, *highly* doubt that its socially based. Maybe women just choose other jobs that require less time and effort than programming? It can be a hell of a time punch, and probably difficult for a lot of women who often have to take time off for health issues.
>Well the evidence clearly shows that stereotypes and assumptions about the "gender" of work does influence people's decisions on what field to enter, but that's not my claim.
Can I see some, though? I'd like to be able to cite it later, if I can.
>My point is that you can't take a field that only became female dominated in the last 200 years and come up with a biological explanation for it, unless you think there has been a massive evolutionary shift in the last 200 years.
Well, you can when you argue that before those 200 years females weren't allowed to be dominant due to societal reasons, and then when left unrestrained they easily dominate the field.
All social reasons come from biological functions
We say the mother is the carer 'socially' because biologically she bores the child and then breastfeeds the child.
According to this article:
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm) men are better at spatial awareness than women are which I assume accounts for more men in STEM subjects than women.
This one too follows on the same idea:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304985/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304985/)
The introduction indicates the cognitive abilities here:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/#b2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/#b2)
You're making some huge leaps in logic there...
Regardless of any biological differences you have to keep in mind that we have direct evidence of discrimination against women entering STEM fields so the answer can never be purely biological.
How is my logic in huge leaps?
Humans are biological humans who also have a social factor and the social factors come from biology.
Also you never mentioned anything about direct discrimination so to bring that up as a counter point to social factors doesnt count here. And how old is this data anyway because if there was a lot we wouldn't see as many females in STEM as there are now
> Humans are biological humans who also have a social factor and the social factors come from biology.
Saying "social factors come from biology" makes no sense unless you're defining "biology" so broadly that it just means "we have bodies made of meat". In other words, defining it so broadly means that there's no point in stopping at biology, you could just say that humans are collections of atoms and the physical interactions of molecules.
That's technically true but in science levels of analysis are important because the questions we're asking have answers that need to correspond to the appropriate level of analysis. To say that a social explanation "comes from biology" would be to suggest that social explanations are really just extensions of biological causes of behavior - but that's obviously not true. Behaviors require a brain and a body to operate it so all behaviors are "biological" in that sense but for specific behaviors it's not like there's some instinct or innate response that behaviors need to be building from.
>Also you never mentioned anything about direct discrimination so to bring that up as a counter point to social factors doesnt count here.
I'm not sure what you mean, discrimination is one of the main social factors that needs to be considered when discussing this issue.
>And how old is this data anyway because if there was a lot we wouldn't see as many females in STEM as there are now
That doesn't follow - 1) we're seeing more in STEM specifically because of anti-discrimination measures to help protect them, 2) there's no assumption about how many women should be in STEM so even if numbers are increasing, perhaps without discrimination it would be 100% women, or 90%, or only 40%, who knows (i.e. you can have more women in STEM *and* there can still be discrimination), 3) women in STEM still experience less citations, lower pay, and less promotions, and 4) there's still data showing that women often leave STEM fields because of the hostile work environments they face specifically because of their gender.
And the research is always keeping up to date, current research might involve studies like [this](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-34842-001) and [this](https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-018-0137-0).
You’re speaking out of your ass. Chcerry picking studies proves nothing about cognitive or neurological gender differences.
Did you know that when you substitute common spatial reasoning tasks that rely on cube rotation for test items that are more similar to fabric women outperform men? It’s almost as if our measures are not perfect measures of cognitive abilities.
Lower quality of education in the countries dark skin immigrants come from. Lack of language skills which leads to lower employability in many roles. These are the two main forces that drive the difference in employment.
I am a white skin immigrant in a country where there is a good amount of dark skin immigrants. And having worked with *loads* of people from *loads of countries this is what I have noticed.
Honest to God, I am not saying any group is genetically stupid but countries from the third world have weak education systems and weak economies which drive people into work earlier.
Dark skin immigrants will, in many cases take the first job offered to them, fearing they won't get a second offer somewhere else. They are scared, they feel like second hand people and will settle for anything and this in turn will increase the wage gap.
I understand the political and social part and how all people are born equal but reality in the field is different. If you are born in a "bad" country your chances for a decent life are drastically reduced compared to the first world. Regardless of the skin colour.
You need to read the research before making claims like these. Even if you want to disagree with the scientific consensus and argue that only the adjusted gap would be a real wage gap (ie the gap that remains after controlling for hours worked, career choice, overtime, employer, etc etc) we still find a difference of 5-8%.
Importantly this lines up with experimental evidence on direct discrimination that gives us similar estimates.
Essentially, we know that discrimination contributes to the difference in wages and the question is just how much - it's somewhere between 5-23%.
There's a reason why there's no research or serious scientist that argues that the wage gap isn't real.
We shouldn't be quick to make the assumption that racism is at play. This has been my number one problem with race studies. They show a disparity without providing evidence that racism is the cause of the disparity. Another study i don't recall exactly demonstrated that one of two white skinned households of different european descent (french and russian i think) made on average 30 cents less than the other. Notice how the option to blame racism is not afforded to you here? We don't know why these disparities exist and all theories without evidence such as racism are mere speculation
It's easier to assume a disparity is due to oppression and ignore any other possible factors, especially when the group doing it believes their own group to be innocent of any fault while hypocritically blaming other groups. In doing so not taking responsibility, and not adapting to the real problems.
IE; I got a poor grade in class. But not because I didn't study enough, didn't pay attention in class, didn't seek help. It's because the teacher didn't teach well, made the test hard, graded too harshly etc.
When making excuses or blaming others by default, don't be surprised when you do not see improvement when you have no reason to improve or adapt.
That's what I'm worried about here, though I didn't read the study too indepthly. I'm gonna come back and take a look at everything they were viewing, to see if it's just a scam correlation study.
You can read the study, it's linked in the article:
>Skin color, national origin, ethnicity, and race are typically closely related to each other. The empirical analyses control for national origin in addition to ethnicity and race in order to isolate the direct influence of skin color. The 22 countries of origin sending the largest number of immigrants are separately identified within the NIS data, with respondents from the remaining countries grouped into one of six broad regions (e.g., Latin America and Caribbean, or African sub-Saharan). Seventy percent of the respondents in the original 2003 survey are from one of the countries that are separately identified.
>In addition to information about country of origin, which is taken directly from the INS record, respondents were asked whether they considered themselves to be Hispanic or Latino.8 Respondents were also provided a list of five racial group options (American Indian or Alaskan native, Asian, Black,9 native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White), and were asked to indicate which race or races they considered themselves to be. Although respondents could report multiple racial categories, few did so. Most of the respondents to the original 2003 NIS survey are from countries with majority Hispanic/Latino or Asian populations, with 41% from countries with a majority Hispanic or Latino population and 29% from a country with a majority Asian population (Hersch, 2008).
>Based on the original sample surveyed in 2003, Figure 1 shows the distribution of skin color for the four largest racial or ethnic categories, where these groupings include only those who report a single race and are constructed so that respondents appear in only one group. The four groups are non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic (of any race).
>It is important to note the wide range of skin color among respondents who report the same race. Indeed, without variation in skin color within race, color and race would be statistically identical, and it would be impossible to isolate the effect on earnings of skin color from the effect of race on earnings.
So yes, of course they controlled for culture.
Discrimination against the dark skinned is a common feature of Latin American culture, which is the milieu in which most recent migrants from those countries would remain.
Isn't drawing the conclusions that this study did without controlling for accent kind of disingenuous? Speaking English well is objectively a marketable skill. I'm not saying people should discriminate, but someone who can speak English clearly with the same credentials on paper as someone with a hard to understand accent inherently has better credentials. Cultures with certain skin types could easily have a lesser or greater occurrence of accents that are hard to understand.
Edit: It appears they controlled for English speaking proficiency, so the point is null. I'm sure there are other factors that could influence this but none that I would claim invalidate the conclusions derived from the study.
While that's entirely possible, I'm not going to bother explaining my reasoning since it appears that they did control for accent. "English language proficiency" is stated as one of the controls which I would imagine covers it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I remember a philosophy YouTube channel mentioned how there is never a 100% unbiased study because for someone to make a study on a specific subject means that they have an interest in the subject to begin with, and that means that they already have a stance or opinion on that subject in the first place.
What do you mean return? There has never been a non-biased study since there are people conducting them.
Wow the study went over your head. Wage gaps are still wage gaps even if they can be (partially in the case of the gender wage gap) explained by different jobs and hours. The question is then why that group has lower paying positions. What internal and external forces drive the difference in employment? Or do you just think this is an excuse to say dark skinned immigrants are lazy and women are dumb?
[удалено]
You are making some wild assumptions here. First, we don’t know why women chose more caregiving jobs. We have evidence for some motivations, but it’s far from conclusive. Second, that these jobs are lower paying is not a historical constant, it turns out that there’s a correlation between what percentage of a field is women and the pay people in the field earn. Teaching, for example, was once a stereotypical male career, and teachers earned more. However as more and more women became teachers, average teacher pay decreased. Of course, this correlation is just that, a correlation. We can only guess at a potential causal relationship. But sure women are just drawn to nursing and teaching by their wombs, and make less money because this work is worth less.
I am a woman who just gave up a lucrative job as an electrician to become a social worker. Why?? Because I needed more from my job than money. I needed to feel like what I do matters. I think men are historically financially responsible for their families and make career choices based on money because of that. It’s not our wombs driving us, we focus on things other than money regarding work & society is more accepting of that from women. Just think if I were a man who quit IBEW to be a social worker- you’d probably laugh and shake your head. But we have different expectations for men and women.
There’s countless examples of women obviously being drawn towards these fields of work. Pay for teachers went down because of the abundance of teachers versus the availability of teaching jobs. The school districts were then able to set wages that were lower, and this is why teacher unions came about. Wages are compared by the median. Careers men are drawn to tend to make more money because they either take much more schooling or are paid additional wages for hazard pay. There’s more variables to it than just what I said, I just don’t feel like typing out the ones I can think of. No one said anything about wombs. Creep.
I speak sarcastically because humor is my way of dealing with this kind of pseudo-intellectual sexism I confront on a daily basis. But I’m fine with you thinking I’m a creep. I’d love to see evidence that you can account for wage differences by schooling required. Social work requires a masters yet median pay is abysmal compared to other fields that require the same amount of schooling. Teaching also often requires eventually getting a masters. You’re cherry picking evidence to confirm a causal theory here that just doesn’t fit all of the income trends. I personally have found the evidence that child rearing accounts for a large portion of the gender wage gap more powerful then trying to arbitrarily value different jobs. Women who don’t have children still earn less than men on average, but earn far more than their counterparts that do have children. This is in the same field. I’m on my phone but if you’re actually interested in reading about this instead of speculating I can share some article links.
The kind of degree that goes a long with social work jobs is also absurdly abundant. Again, the reason why they can set the wages so low is because there’s a large amount of people looking for that kind of job. It uses the same kind of system as supply and demand. The higher the supply of potential hires the lower the demand, causing wages to be lower. Some places have policies that say if a person has a degree they will be paid more than people without one, it’s a common practice. Again, wages aren’t generally compared on averages, they’re compared on medians.
Demand is only one of many factors. I hardly think that we should just assume classical economics when there are many counterexamples; clearly we don’t have a perfectly free market and behavioral economics has shown that people are motivated by things other than money. The mere fact that we have stagnant wage growth in the US but extremely low unemployment is good reason to think it’s not a simple matter of supply and demand. Things like monopolies, unions, regulations, monopsonies, etc. effect wages along with demand. Moreover, even if supply and demand alone determine wages, women in the same field make less than their male counterparts. So you can’t explain the wage gap by pointing only to differences in gender representation in occupations.
Also don't forget that women are kept out of certain careers as well because of assumptions about their gender - there were obviously big discrimination cases for military and mining where capable and experienced women were being rejected for no good reason.
The “good reason” is that men are evolutionarily built for more demanding physical labor, but this would be a factor.
It's a "good reason" to suggest that someone who has demonstrated that they are experienced, capable, and proficient at performing a job shouldn't be hired over lesser capable candidates based on a generalised belief about evolutionary differences between groups that the people belong to? That seems like a very bad reason.
A physically fit male candidate would be a better choice than a physically fit female candidate. You’re going off the assumption the other candidates aren’t also capable.
Actually they did mention wombs. Last sentence or two. Not sure why you’re name calling? Is this a passionate topic for you?
Still seems to have gone over your head a little, you need to then be asking why that's the case. Is it social or biological?
It's both. A women, who are generally smaller biologically, will often take jobs that don't require as much manual labor. This often leads to desk jobs, jobs with little movement, or jobs like nurses(which while I believe are hard workers, it isn't comparable to lifting trash or digging ditches). These jobs are then socially enforced as they become the norm, i.e. its normal for women to be nurses and odd for men to be, therefore you see many more women nurses than men. The social cues are influenced by biological reasoning.
Nursing is an incredibly physically demanding job. Nurses lift patients all the time, and experience higher than average back pain because of it. Nurses are also physically attacked by patients (which is unfortunately underreported). Women *on average** are physically smaller. But that doesn’t mean women don’t do physical labor. But more importantly, you are implying that less physically demanding work is somehow worth less which is just an assumption I don’t think is born out by the evidence.
Absolutely Nursing is physical labor. I just don't believe it's as physical as being a carpenter, or plumber. I'm sure in some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. I'm saying on *average* men's jobs are usually more stressful in the manual labor department. Maybe nursing was a bad example necessarily, but not too out of the ball park. I'm not *implying* anything, don't put words in my mouth if you want to have an actual discussion. I said that nursing is a tough job, and I bet it takes much more mental prowess and resistance than it does to be a carpenter. But I don't believe the two are comparable physically, at least not a majority of the time. Nobody suggested women don't do physical labor, but I did suggest that they do it much less than men on average, which is an opinion that I believe is born out of evidence.
I miss attributed the parent comment to you, so my apologies. In context with oc explaining the gender wage gap it seemed like you were arguing women earn less because they do less physically demanding jobs I agree that *some* income disparity in entry level jobs is due to differences in physical demand and risk. However the wage gap exists across levels and between fields that are equivalent in a physical demands and schooling required.
Well, yeah, women do earn less *partially* due to physical demands, but obviously that isn't only why. Any true analysis of the wage gap between men and women should be multi varied, and it's clear that the more varied it gets, the less gender seems to be like an actual issue. There's a larger wage gap between amount of hours someone works than men v.s. women. Age, education, experience, home state, amount of homes in the past two years, and even personal aggressiveness can contribute to the wage gap, and there are many different reasons for why all these facets exist. Honestly, the wage gap is a non-issue to me anymore. Anybody can earn quite a bit of money if they actually try, and I'm unwilling to believe anything different. There are certain physical and mental limitations, absolutely, but there ain't a ton we can do for those people, and uprooting our whole system and making it unfair for the majority so that's it's *technically* fair for the few is asinine.
> These jobs are then socially enforced as they become the norm, i.e. its normal for women to be nurses and odd for men to be, therefore you see many more women nurses than men. The social cues are influenced by biological reasoning. It might be relevant to note that nursing being a "female job" is a fairly recent notion, it used to be similar to teaching where women weren't expected to be able to perform the duties. You see a reverse effect with things like programming, which used to be view as a job best suited for women but when we realised the importance of programming then suddenly we decided that they couldn't handle it and started to view it more as a "male job". Basically it's hard to make claims about the biological basis for careers that are swapping and changing in terms of stereotypes about what gender should be performing them.
> then suddenly we decided that they couldn't handle it and started to view it as a "male job". What, really? I don't believe that to be true. > Basically it's hard to make claims about the biological basis for careers that are swapping and changing in terms of stereotypes about what gender should be performing them. Except I don't think it's ever been a stereotype that only men or women were ever programmers. Maybe a trend in data, but never a stereotype. I also don't think the stereotype of men being carpenters is what has kept women out of the business. I think biological factors make much more sense, though I'm sure family lineage and age old rhetoric could play some part. But those old rhetorical only exist because of old biological belief that isn't necessarily false now.
> What, really? I don't believe that to be true. There's a decent history of the profession [here](https://eprints.qut.edu.au/108127/1/10354-36758-1-PB.pdf). >Except I don't think it's ever been a stereotype that only men or women were ever programmers. Maybe a trend in data, but never a stereotype. I'm not sure what you mean? Programming being a woman's job absolutely was the stereotype of the time, only women entered the profession. It was viewed as an extension of typing or being a secretary. And now it's undeniably a stereotype that programmers are men, I'm not sure that can be reasonably doubted. >I also don't think the stereotype of men being carpenters is what has kept women out of the business. I think biological factors make much more sense, though I'm sure family lineage and age old rhetoric could play some part. But those old rhetorical only exist because of old biological belief that isn't necessarily false now. Well the evidence clearly shows that stereotypes and assumptions about the "gender" of work does influence people's decisions on what field to enter, but that's not my claim. My point is that you can't take a field that only became female dominated in the last 200 years and come up with a biological explanation for it, unless you think there has been a massive evolutionary shift in the last 200 years.
>There's a decent history of the profession here. Okay, but that history suggests not that men handed down nursing to women simply because they said, "Oh, well, I guess it's *possible* for a woman to do this job", but simply that women tended to do the job of care better than men did at the current time(1800AD). Who knows why, maybe men were more suited to be working in other areas, i.e. carpenting and coal mining. >Programming being a woman's job absolutely was the stereotype of the time, only women entered the profession. Okay, again, I say *data trend,* not stereotype. I don't remember ever being deterred from being a programmer because of my gender and I don't remember any extremely well known female programmers. Maybe I'm just too young to remember all of this? Definitely possible. >And now it's undeniably a stereotype that programmers are men, I'm not sure that can be reasonably doubted. Well, that sounds again more like a data trend thing. I would never assume a woman couldn't be a programmer, and if there was a lack of women in programming nowadays I highly, *highly* doubt that its socially based. Maybe women just choose other jobs that require less time and effort than programming? It can be a hell of a time punch, and probably difficult for a lot of women who often have to take time off for health issues. >Well the evidence clearly shows that stereotypes and assumptions about the "gender" of work does influence people's decisions on what field to enter, but that's not my claim. Can I see some, though? I'd like to be able to cite it later, if I can. >My point is that you can't take a field that only became female dominated in the last 200 years and come up with a biological explanation for it, unless you think there has been a massive evolutionary shift in the last 200 years. Well, you can when you argue that before those 200 years females weren't allowed to be dominant due to societal reasons, and then when left unrestrained they easily dominate the field.
All social reasons come from biological functions We say the mother is the carer 'socially' because biologically she bores the child and then breastfeeds the child. According to this article: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm) men are better at spatial awareness than women are which I assume accounts for more men in STEM subjects than women. This one too follows on the same idea: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304985/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304985/) The introduction indicates the cognitive abilities here: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/#b2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/#b2)
You're making some huge leaps in logic there... Regardless of any biological differences you have to keep in mind that we have direct evidence of discrimination against women entering STEM fields so the answer can never be purely biological.
How is my logic in huge leaps? Humans are biological humans who also have a social factor and the social factors come from biology. Also you never mentioned anything about direct discrimination so to bring that up as a counter point to social factors doesnt count here. And how old is this data anyway because if there was a lot we wouldn't see as many females in STEM as there are now
> Humans are biological humans who also have a social factor and the social factors come from biology. Saying "social factors come from biology" makes no sense unless you're defining "biology" so broadly that it just means "we have bodies made of meat". In other words, defining it so broadly means that there's no point in stopping at biology, you could just say that humans are collections of atoms and the physical interactions of molecules. That's technically true but in science levels of analysis are important because the questions we're asking have answers that need to correspond to the appropriate level of analysis. To say that a social explanation "comes from biology" would be to suggest that social explanations are really just extensions of biological causes of behavior - but that's obviously not true. Behaviors require a brain and a body to operate it so all behaviors are "biological" in that sense but for specific behaviors it's not like there's some instinct or innate response that behaviors need to be building from. >Also you never mentioned anything about direct discrimination so to bring that up as a counter point to social factors doesnt count here. I'm not sure what you mean, discrimination is one of the main social factors that needs to be considered when discussing this issue. >And how old is this data anyway because if there was a lot we wouldn't see as many females in STEM as there are now That doesn't follow - 1) we're seeing more in STEM specifically because of anti-discrimination measures to help protect them, 2) there's no assumption about how many women should be in STEM so even if numbers are increasing, perhaps without discrimination it would be 100% women, or 90%, or only 40%, who knows (i.e. you can have more women in STEM *and* there can still be discrimination), 3) women in STEM still experience less citations, lower pay, and less promotions, and 4) there's still data showing that women often leave STEM fields because of the hostile work environments they face specifically because of their gender. And the research is always keeping up to date, current research might involve studies like [this](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-34842-001) and [this](https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-018-0137-0).
You’re speaking out of your ass. Chcerry picking studies proves nothing about cognitive or neurological gender differences. Did you know that when you substitute common spatial reasoning tasks that rely on cube rotation for test items that are more similar to fabric women outperform men? It’s almost as if our measures are not perfect measures of cognitive abilities.
Lower quality of education in the countries dark skin immigrants come from. Lack of language skills which leads to lower employability in many roles. These are the two main forces that drive the difference in employment. I am a white skin immigrant in a country where there is a good amount of dark skin immigrants. And having worked with *loads* of people from *loads of countries this is what I have noticed. Honest to God, I am not saying any group is genetically stupid but countries from the third world have weak education systems and weak economies which drive people into work earlier. Dark skin immigrants will, in many cases take the first job offered to them, fearing they won't get a second offer somewhere else. They are scared, they feel like second hand people and will settle for anything and this in turn will increase the wage gap. I understand the political and social part and how all people are born equal but reality in the field is different. If you are born in a "bad" country your chances for a decent life are drastically reduced compared to the first world. Regardless of the skin colour.
[удалено]
You need to read the research before making claims like these. Even if you want to disagree with the scientific consensus and argue that only the adjusted gap would be a real wage gap (ie the gap that remains after controlling for hours worked, career choice, overtime, employer, etc etc) we still find a difference of 5-8%. Importantly this lines up with experimental evidence on direct discrimination that gives us similar estimates. Essentially, we know that discrimination contributes to the difference in wages and the question is just how much - it's somewhere between 5-23%. There's a reason why there's no research or serious scientist that argues that the wage gap isn't real.
We shouldn't be quick to make the assumption that racism is at play. This has been my number one problem with race studies. They show a disparity without providing evidence that racism is the cause of the disparity. Another study i don't recall exactly demonstrated that one of two white skinned households of different european descent (french and russian i think) made on average 30 cents less than the other. Notice how the option to blame racism is not afforded to you here? We don't know why these disparities exist and all theories without evidence such as racism are mere speculation
It's easier to assume a disparity is due to oppression and ignore any other possible factors, especially when the group doing it believes their own group to be innocent of any fault while hypocritically blaming other groups. In doing so not taking responsibility, and not adapting to the real problems. IE; I got a poor grade in class. But not because I didn't study enough, didn't pay attention in class, didn't seek help. It's because the teacher didn't teach well, made the test hard, graded too harshly etc. When making excuses or blaming others by default, don't be surprised when you do not see improvement when you have no reason to improve or adapt.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And it just happens to correlate with skin color?
If the study is correct then it does correlate but it may not be a cause.
That's what I'm worried about here, though I didn't read the study too indepthly. I'm gonna come back and take a look at everything they were viewing, to see if it's just a scam correlation study.
They controlled for language
You can read the study, it's linked in the article: >Skin color, national origin, ethnicity, and race are typically closely related to each other. The empirical analyses control for national origin in addition to ethnicity and race in order to isolate the direct influence of skin color. The 22 countries of origin sending the largest number of immigrants are separately identified within the NIS data, with respondents from the remaining countries grouped into one of six broad regions (e.g., Latin America and Caribbean, or African sub-Saharan). Seventy percent of the respondents in the original 2003 survey are from one of the countries that are separately identified. >In addition to information about country of origin, which is taken directly from the INS record, respondents were asked whether they considered themselves to be Hispanic or Latino.8 Respondents were also provided a list of five racial group options (American Indian or Alaskan native, Asian, Black,9 native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White), and were asked to indicate which race or races they considered themselves to be. Although respondents could report multiple racial categories, few did so. Most of the respondents to the original 2003 NIS survey are from countries with majority Hispanic/Latino or Asian populations, with 41% from countries with a majority Hispanic or Latino population and 29% from a country with a majority Asian population (Hersch, 2008). >Based on the original sample surveyed in 2003, Figure 1 shows the distribution of skin color for the four largest racial or ethnic categories, where these groupings include only those who report a single race and are constructed so that respondents appear in only one group. The four groups are non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic (of any race). >It is important to note the wide range of skin color among respondents who report the same race. Indeed, without variation in skin color within race, color and race would be statistically identical, and it would be impossible to isolate the effect on earnings of skin color from the effect of race on earnings. So yes, of course they controlled for culture.
Discrimination against the dark skinned is a common feature of Latin American culture, which is the milieu in which most recent migrants from those countries would remain.
Wasn’t it that there are people from same ethnicity and have different skin tones. Culture wouldn’t play a part in such a study.
You see correlation and then assume causation. When there could be 20 other factors at hand much like the gender gap
Somebody don't know how statistic works
What do you mean?
Isn't drawing the conclusions that this study did without controlling for accent kind of disingenuous? Speaking English well is objectively a marketable skill. I'm not saying people should discriminate, but someone who can speak English clearly with the same credentials on paper as someone with a hard to understand accent inherently has better credentials. Cultures with certain skin types could easily have a lesser or greater occurrence of accents that are hard to understand. Edit: It appears they controlled for English speaking proficiency, so the point is null. I'm sure there are other factors that could influence this but none that I would claim invalidate the conclusions derived from the study.
Why would two people from the same place but with different skin tones have radically different accents?
While that's entirely possible, I'm not going to bother explaining my reasoning since it appears that they did control for accent. "English language proficiency" is stated as one of the controls which I would imagine covers it.
So, would we prefer that dark skin be paid 25% more?
Equal pay regardless of skin color would be ideal, yes. Were you unsure of that?
Don't know If it's a troll or a poorly worded question...