Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yalurker 5741 days ago
The whole gender wage gap issue tends to set me off, as it is filled with "lies, damned lies and statistics" and half the arguments seem to exist in a fairy tale world, so this may get a little ranty, but I'll try to keep it on the level:

OF COURSE THEY DO! As someone born in the 1980s, the gender norms of the previous generations had already been blown away. Schools are filled with female teachers, administrators and policy makers. The bias inherent in the system is already in favor of females, and yet we pile on extra focus and opportunities for girls at every level from kindergarten through college. We celebrate every female accomplishment while any sign of male over-achievement is viewed as being a manifestation of discrimination.

Today, women are more likely to graduate high school, get a phD, go to law school, go to medical school. Less likely to go to jail. How is anyone surprised when women therefore end up making more money? The horribly flawed, over used statistic about women making less than men has been shown many times to be due to hours worked, aggressiveness in pursuing promotions and raises, and other similar factors.

To compensate for women born before the 1970s getting the short end of the stick, our culture has given girls born in the '80s and later every possible advantage. This news article isn't shocking, surprising, or novel - it was inevitable.

/end rant, goodbye karma

2 comments

There were always a lot of women in education. Just think, not too long ago the most viable career opportunities for women were homemaker, typist and teacher. Apparently, though, women have taken up an even higher % of teaching positions relative to men in recent years.

I dunno if that statistic you're citing is that horribly flawed. Remember, the top end of the income scale is still operating on prior generation norms, or at the least has only very recently changed. It certainly wasn't operating that way in the 1980s. Given the income inequality, the averages probably still work out in favor of men.

There have not always been a lot of women (relative to the amount of men) in tenured positions.
You mean at university? Ok, probably true, but that likely says more about the limited role of women in "real professions" in prior generations than it does about anything else, no?

Not to get too irate about it but I can't stand when people whine about the success of women or claim men have the deck stacked against them somehow. If you're going to extol the virtues of being a man, the least you can do is act like one.

>Not to get too irate about it but I can't stand when people whine about [...]. If you're going to extol the virtues of being a man, the least you can do is act like one.

I hope you see the irony in complaining about perceived sexism towards females by being sexist towards men.

I didn't think I was A) Complaining about sexism towards women, or B) Being sexist towards men. I mean, I'm a man. I know that because I was born in America and had access to a good education, I'm in great shape, good enough to control my own destiny. Whining about someone else having it easier seems like a strategy for losers. I suppose, if you're offended, you could say my tone was sexist. But I was really going more for derisive (of an idea, not a person).
Aside from anything else, saying "act like a man" is sexist.

It's assuming that men should bear burdens that others shouldn't have to. That they should not complain when faced with hardship (whilst others can) that they should take harm and not object because that is just their position in the order of things. It's an extension of men being expendable - http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm (most here have seen that before I'm sure).

FWIW I, at least in part, agree with that sexist position that I've just espoused. But I recognise it as sexist.

Depends on the country doesn't it? In some European countries younger women employees are dangerous because they might go off and get pregnant (companies are legally required to keep their job available).
USA has this too.
It depends on the state. And even then it's only for 12 weeks vs 52+ for Europe or Canada.
Only some countries in Europe. It is interesting you refuse to generalize over the US but are happy to do that for Europe. For some pretty good numbers see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave