Well it’s been demonstrated time and time again that inequality in pay is either misunderstood or a myth. It’s the total salaries of men vs the total salaries of women, regardless of the profession. So if you have a group of nurses vs a group of surgeons, you will inevitably have a discrepancy in total income.
The other factor is that women generally score higher in agreeableness compared to men. Aiming to please doesn’t serve you well on the negotiation table. Teaching girls how to be bold with money should be a feminist battle but no one cares about it.
The reason you have a lot of male CEO is the same reason you have a lot of male trash collectors. Very few women have the willingness to be either of those.
In my experience, men usually don’t have a dog in the fight, so they give whatever you ask for if you deserve it (not talking about the sex pests). On the other hand, very ambitious women suffer from queen bee syndrome and will never collaborate or promote other women because they’re dead scared of losing their spot. I worked for women who had a harem of men in the middle management, and not a single woman, but they’d talk often about the importance of feminism.
And btw, we don’t talk enough about the lib fems who use gender equality to advance their careers and shelve it once they get what they want. How many women in a position of actually enacting change sincerely vouch for women? How many of them defend the right to child care for active moms? Once they reach the top 1% they only defend the interests of their social class, after they exploited the hopes of working-class women in order to get themselves a high-paying bullshit job.
Finally, if the inequality is real, why women with a solid case don’t contact the press? I’m genuinely wondering. Instead, you have seasonal articles about “not enough women in this” and “not enough money in that”. Seriously, if your boss is a misogynistic slaver who only targets women, why don’t you fuck his shit up considering that the media is primed for it and will be on your side?
I’m a woman so don’t @ me plz lol
Look, I’m kinda tired. There’s nothing wrong with your point. Yes, most firms don’t blatantly pay women less for the same work.
However, there are lots of other factors at play that cause women’s wages to be lower on average, for example societal expectations of them to do most of the home duties and child work, including losing out on pay because of pregnancy, less willingness to promote them and the fact that many fields that are considered “women-work” and, thus fields where they often end up in, are paid worse than many jobs considered “men’s jobs”. Also, particularly in the trades and stem fields women are sometimes ostracized.
It’s not that there are evil firms who pay women less for the same work because they’re sexist or something, the feminist argument is that there are societal factors that cause women to have lower salaries on average, and this does lead to a net negative benefit of raising the retirement age for them because most people receive more from the AHV than they pay into it (92% do, btw).
Therefore the additional AHV contribution from working a year more does not compensate their rent that’s been lost from not getting AHV for one year.
That’s been the argument of the “no side” and how it’s tied to feminism, things are never plain or simple in politics.
3 comments
Let me grab some popcorn…
Well it’s been demonstrated time and time again that inequality in pay is either misunderstood or a myth. It’s the total salaries of men vs the total salaries of women, regardless of the profession. So if you have a group of nurses vs a group of surgeons, you will inevitably have a discrepancy in total income.
The other factor is that women generally score higher in agreeableness compared to men. Aiming to please doesn’t serve you well on the negotiation table. Teaching girls how to be bold with money should be a feminist battle but no one cares about it.
The reason you have a lot of male CEO is the same reason you have a lot of male trash collectors. Very few women have the willingness to be either of those.
In my experience, men usually don’t have a dog in the fight, so they give whatever you ask for if you deserve it (not talking about the sex pests). On the other hand, very ambitious women suffer from queen bee syndrome and will never collaborate or promote other women because they’re dead scared of losing their spot. I worked for women who had a harem of men in the middle management, and not a single woman, but they’d talk often about the importance of feminism.
And btw, we don’t talk enough about the lib fems who use gender equality to advance their careers and shelve it once they get what they want. How many women in a position of actually enacting change sincerely vouch for women? How many of them defend the right to child care for active moms? Once they reach the top 1% they only defend the interests of their social class, after they exploited the hopes of working-class women in order to get themselves a high-paying bullshit job.
Finally, if the inequality is real, why women with a solid case don’t contact the press? I’m genuinely wondering. Instead, you have seasonal articles about “not enough women in this” and “not enough money in that”. Seriously, if your boss is a misogynistic slaver who only targets women, why don’t you fuck his shit up considering that the media is primed for it and will be on your side?
I’m a woman so don’t @ me plz lol
Look, I’m kinda tired. There’s nothing wrong with your point. Yes, most firms don’t blatantly pay women less for the same work.
However, there are lots of other factors at play that cause women’s wages to be lower on average, for example societal expectations of them to do most of the home duties and child work, including losing out on pay because of pregnancy, less willingness to promote them and the fact that many fields that are considered “women-work” and, thus fields where they often end up in, are paid worse than many jobs considered “men’s jobs”. Also, particularly in the trades and stem fields women are sometimes ostracized.
It’s not that there are evil firms who pay women less for the same work because they’re sexist or something, the feminist argument is that there are societal factors that cause women to have lower salaries on average, and this does lead to a net negative benefit of raising the retirement age for them because most people receive more from the AHV than they pay into it (92% do, btw).
Therefore the additional AHV contribution from working a year more does not compensate their rent that’s been lost from not getting AHV for one year.
That’s been the argument of the “no side” and how it’s tied to feminism, things are never plain or simple in politics.