[mrgoldenbrown]

If you are going to account for position, how do you account for the fact that women are often in a lower ranked position, because they are less likely to be promoted? You can't claim there's no pay gap just because it's being obfuscated by bias in job titles.

[chrisfosterelli]

I'm not going to argue that this accounts for it entirely, but I do think it's worth pointing out that women typically are less interested in higher ranked positions than men tend to be [0]. They are less likely to be promoted because they are less likely to want a promotion.

[0] http://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12354.abstract

[electrograv]

> They [women] are less likely to be promoted because they are less likely to want a promotion.

I don't think anyone could ask for a better example of systemic entrenched sexist bias than this quote. "It's okay, don't worry about it; they just don't want to be promoted as much as us men."

This is not that much different from the old "women enjoy being in their husband's kitchen and tending to the house, so it's okay most women are there instead of working independently!" Evidence clearly exists that lot of women used to enjoy being in the kitchen, but that doesn't mean women are less suited to work outside the kitchen -- to make an extreme example.

[chrisfosterelli]

> systemic entrenched sexist bias

Did you read the source? I was not being sexist, I was stating a factual finding from a peer-reviewed journal... I believe you misinterpreted my statement.

> Evidence clearly exists that lot of women used to enjoy being in the kitchen, but that doesn't mean women are less suited to work outside the kitchen -- to make an extreme example.

Yes, and this is my point! If you read the article I sourced, it said that women found "high-level positions as equally attainable as men do, but less desirable". Evidence clearly exists that a lot of women want to prioritize non-work related factors in their life, which is why you see less women in higher-level positions currently, but that doesn't mean women are less suited to high-level positions.

[moron4hire]

Perhaps one of the reasons this aggregate category of "women" doesn't want "these jobs" is because of an expectation of harassment or bias on the job. It's kind of hard to want to progress anywhere that is openly or passively aggressive towards you.

I don't think "they just don't want the jobs" should be considered the end of the story or any sort of proof that sexism isn't happening. Regardless, even if it were, it isn't actionable information in any way. You can't go from "some women just don't want to be CEOs" to "thus, let's continue to operate the ol' boys club". Somewhere in the middle, a message or two are getting lost.

You'd really have to be living under a rock to think there is not sexism going in the workplace. All this study says is that it doesn't manifest in the particular, limited region surrounding compensation, which is by far not the sum total of the employment experience.

[chrisfosterelli]

> Perhaps one of the reasons this aggregate category of "women" doesn't want "these jobs" is because of an expectation of harassment or bias on the job. It's kind of hard to want to progress anywhere that is openly or passively aggressive towards you.

Sure, perhaps. While we are throwing out guesses, perhaps it is because women consider other things in life more of a priority than achieving career power.

When asked to rate their life priorities, women tend to put a lower ratio of work related goals. Cultural influences teach men and women to prioritize different things in their life. That's probably a bigger gender problem worth tackling.

> I don't think "they just don't want the jobs" should be considered the end of the story or any sort of proof that sexism isn't happening.

Definitely, which is why I said "I'm not going to argue that this accounts for it entirely".

> All this study says is that it doesn't manifest in the particular, limited region surrounding compensation, which is by far not the sum total of the employment experience.

Also true for sure, but the original article posted by OP is about compensation, and I never suggested that the study covered the totality of workplace experiences.

[moron4hire]

You're certainly didn't seem like you were taking up the "we need to do something about decision in the workplace" position. Seemed more like your taking up the position that nothing should be done.

[nwah1]

Hmm more like "those awful males are so competitive in pursuing career advancement. Maybe testosterone has some sort of effect."

[tomp]

I think a lot of it has to do with sexual competition. Men know that women are (in general) attracted to power, so they spend effort on earning money and becoming more powerful. Conversely, women know that men are attracted to beauty and youth, so they spend time and money on trying to look younger and prettier.

[nwah1]

Another very valid point. Different preferences naturally lead to different outcomes.

Invoking discrimination as the first explanation for any discrepancies is a way to debase the concept of discrimination.

Proper studies of this sort try to isolate variables by, for instance, submitting identical resumes except for the gender.

[zardgiv]

Is there a citation for women in general being attracted to power? Or perhaps you're just reinforcing gender stereotypes that are convenient for the narrative you're spinning?

[tomp]

Not trying to spin a narrative (I don't have an agenda), this is just based on my personal observations, both of people around me, and the society as a whole (famous people, media, movies, ...).

[whatok]

I'd argue it more stems from childhood with the way boys are encouraged to approach situations and how that differs from the treatment girls receive. Boys are encouraged to be more aggressive while girls are supposed to be timid. When it's that deeply ingrained in society, you do not fix the problem through posting infographics on the White House website.

[belorn]

The Swedish government agency responsible for statistics do a yearly survey on what people value in their job and by job seekers. Attributes like pay, social status, work environment, safety, and so on is evaluated and then correlated to things like gender.

And yes, there are differences. We could blame it on women for consistently valuating social status higher than pay, or we could blame men for consistently valuating pay higher than social status.

Here is an idea. Lets increase pay for female dominated professions, but lets restrict it to only jobs that has low social status, is risky, and with unfriendly environment. At the same time, lets apply affirmative action to female dominated professions with high social status and low pay, and get a minimum of 40% males.

Those changes would have a almost guarantied effect to eliminate current pay gaps, but would be completely rejected by any feminist group, for the very reason that it would go against the current female and male culture that created the pay gap.

[brbsix]

It it really 'systemic entrenched sexist bias' if it's true, to the best of our available knowledge?

[geofft]

How do you reliably distinguish someone intrinsically not wanting a promotion from someone not wanting to deal with the crap that comes with trying to get a promotion?

From the abstract: "In studies 5–7, when faced with the possibility of receiving a promotion at their current place of employment or obtaining a high-power position after graduating from college, women and men anticipated similar levels of positive outcomes (e.g., prestige and money), but women anticipated more negative outcomes (e.g., conflict and tradeoffs)."

[chrisfosterelli]

I think the study partially addressed this when they asked different participants to describe and rate their life goals. Men tend to consider workplace-related success as more important in their life:

"In studies 1 and 2, when asked to list their core goals in life, women listed more life goals overall than men, and a smaller proportion of their goals related to achieving power at work."

[qiqing]

If you look at the trendlines for what certain types of jobs or fields paid (e.g., doctor, nurse, programmer, marketer), you'd see that when women enter a particular field en masse, the pay drops. And when the gender balance in that field goes from majority female to majority male, the pay increases.

Some well-intentioned parent is probably telling their daughter right now, "Look at field X, which is male-dominated and pays really well! You should study that." And by the time they've grown up to be of working age, the field is at 60F/40M, and the pay has gone way down.

[omonra]

The data should bear it out. If women are promoted less often due to discrimination (as opposed to other factors), they would also be paid less while they are at the lower rungs of the organization.

Ie you don't pay someone the same amount while stifling them during promotion time.