[RHSeeger]

I would argue that the analysis of wages based on different groupings is worthwhile; as long as you don't try to predetermine what you're going to get out of them.

This analysis doesn't show us that woman make more given equal background/education/etc. However, it does provide the interesting information that women (of that age group) are generally better educated. If we take out of it the desire to find out why they're better educated (and ways we can balance it out), we're better off.

The same is true of studies that show women are paid less, but then the real reason (behind the results highlighted in that study) is that they tend to take lower paying jobs [1]. Sure, you can't take out of that "employers aren't paying them enough", but you can take out of it "why are women generally in the lower paying jobs?", and look for ways to change that fact.

[1] I'm not saying there is or is not a gender gap for equal jobs, just discussing the useful takeaways of studies that ignore the difference in jobs when analyzing the gender gap.

[fyi1183]

So on [1], there is an interesting question of cause and effect. Are women voluntarily taking inherently lower paid jobs on average? Or is it involuntary / due to social pressure? Or are certain jobs lower paid because they're predominantly taken by women?

The latter is at least a possibility.

[randomdata]

> If we take out of it the desire to find out why they're better educated (and ways we can balance it out), we're better off.

I would argue it is because female-dominated professions tend to have schooling requirements, by law. Male-dominated professions are less apt to.

Anecdotally speaking, I was able to start as a software developer, a male-dominated profession, when I was in high school and soon moved into doing it full time after that. As a result, I do not rank well when measured by my schooling. I later started farming and it did not require schooling either. Both jobs only required the desire to do them. In contrast, a female in my cohort interested in nursing, a female-dominated profession, would legally be prevented from doing so until completing many years of post-secondary schooling. And if that person wants to become a teacher, another female dominated career, later in life even more legal schooling requirements are necessary.

On the assumption that females have more schooling because they have to, in order to pursue the careers they want to do. Is the correction in easing the legal requirements for these jobs, or is the correction to enforce more stringent legal requirements on male-dominated jobs?

[UncleMeat]

> I would argue it is because female-dominated professions tend to have schooling requirements, by law. Male-dominated professions are less apt to.

And you would base this off what data? Surely we shouldnt just be using our guts here.

[randomdata]

> And you would base this off what data?

The data that shows that female-dominated professions are more apt to have legal requirements.

> Surely we shouldnt just be using our guts here.

Well, why not? We're not writing formal research papers here. Only writing comments for personal pleasure in our spare time.

[x220]

I think anyone, regardless of training or education, should be able to be a nurse. To say otherwise is sexism.