You are forgetting that those differencies are due to women looking for jobs that are more in synv with their life as a mother, leading to less pay.
These statistcis are heavily biased and women in coprorate jobs (at least in germany) gain only 8% less.
Edit: To clarify: German statistic say that women gain 22% less pay, but that is just because of the way people telling half of the truth
These statistcis are heavily biased and women in coprorate jobs (at least in germany) gain only 8% less.
Edit: To clarify: German statistic say that women gain 22% less pay, but that is just because of the way people telling half of the truth
xIchi wrote:
You are forgetting that those differencies are due to women looking for jobs that are more in synv with their life as a mother, leading to less pay.
Not so. The stats I linked from the Australian government website compare the gender pay gap for like-jobs, not the difference in pay between a female teacher and a male construction worker.
xIchi wrote:
These statistcis are heavily biased and women in coprorate jobs (at least in germany) gain only 8% less.
But they're still earning less and for no discernible reason other than the fact they are female.
xIchi wrote:
Edit: To clarify: German statistic say that women gain 22% less pay, but that is just because of the way people telling half of the truth
How is that half the truth?
Oh, I forgot jhoijhoi was a teacher.
Firstly, I think This is also a good read on the subject.
In my country, there is about 11.1% of pay gap in 2013, which has risen significantly from 7.3% in 2010. However, the gender pay gap can be easily explained. As mentioned by Searz, Occupational Segregation is the main problem and it cannot be helped.
The interruption of work hours due to Motherhood or Maternity Leaves are found to be causing the mother's work experience to be abbreviated. Several reliable sources have cited the same.
It is inevitable that a woman is "devalued", as you call it, after pregnancy. Your dedication and ability due to motherhood will be put into consideration for whether you are up to your job, and certain job scopes are not suitable for a mother. It is pretty much up to your job to decide whether pregnancy is an issue; A teacher, let's say, would less likely get her ability questioned even when she entered motherhood.
I don't know about contracts terminated due to pregnancy; I'm still so young. Seems obviously unreasonable to me, since motherhood would more likely mature the person. Then again, whether it gets terminated all comes down to what job the subject we are talking about has. Pardon me for being repetitive.
Firstly, I think This is also a good read on the subject.
In my country, there is about 11.1% of pay gap in 2013, which has risen significantly from 7.3% in 2010. However, the gender pay gap can be easily explained. As mentioned by Searz, Occupational Segregation is the main problem and it cannot be helped.
Searz wrote:
And you're stating this on what basis? Personal experience? And even then it's simply an extrapolation.
The interruption of work hours due to Motherhood or Maternity Leaves are found to be causing the mother's work experience to be abbreviated. Several reliable sources have cited the same.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Dictating when a woman can or can not get pregnant is pretty much discrimination.
It is inevitable that a woman is "devalued", as you call it, after pregnancy. Your dedication and ability due to motherhood will be put into consideration for whether you are up to your job, and certain job scopes are not suitable for a mother. It is pretty much up to your job to decide whether pregnancy is an issue; A teacher, let's say, would less likely get her ability questioned even when she entered motherhood.
I don't know about contracts terminated due to pregnancy; I'm still so young. Seems obviously unreasonable to me, since motherhood would more likely mature the person. Then again, whether it gets terminated all comes down to what job the subject we are talking about has. Pardon me for being repetitive.
Blue: Not terminated, but more so job prospects are less. A woman doesn't have to be the primary caregiver of her children, but organisations often assume that they are, hence promotions are not offered to mothers. Whereas a man who has fathered a child has no "onus" upon him of being a primary caregiver, even if he is - an organisation doesn't consider that a man could be a father. It's a societal perception that women would rather stay at home, or work part time to be with their children; for women who are ambitious and attempt to climb through the ranks after having children, they are faced with an unfortunate reality that higher-ups will give promotions to men (or other women) who do not have children, as they are deemed to "have more time" for the job.
In Australia if you get pregnant and are permanently employed, you are entitled to 6 months paid maternity leave or 1 year paid maternity leave at half the pay. Your job is also held open for you, for you to return, and you are likely to be offered part time, as opposed to full time.
If you are in contract or part-time work, I'm unsure of how maternity leave works. I should should so some more research ^^ Also, great link Blue!
In Australia if you get pregnant and are permanently employed, you are entitled to 6 months paid maternity leave or 1 year paid maternity leave at half the pay. Your job is also held open for you, for you to return, and you are likely to be offered part time, as opposed to full time.
If you are in contract or part-time work, I'm unsure of how maternity leave works. I should should so some more research ^^ Also, great link Blue!
My old teacher used to say: "valhe, emävalhe, tilasto" (which basically means "lie, a bigger lie, statistics)
Statistics are an easy way to fool people and make them believe stuff. For example the "Finnish Feminists" had the pay differences researched and put them in to the statistics. The statistics said that Finnish woman earns 30% than Finnish male.
I can't tell what's the case in Australia, but the reason why the difference was so high is that:
So the statistic was a "lie" (it presented the truth in a very untruthful way). The way you do the research is what defines its value. I can't tell how the Australian ones are done but I think they are done quite like the one I used as an example and it might have some "misinformation" in it as it doesn't present the results clearly.
Statistics are an easy way to fool people and make them believe stuff. For example the "Finnish Feminists" had the pay differences researched and put them in to the statistics. The statistics said that Finnish woman earns 30% than Finnish male.
I can't tell what's the case in Australia, but the reason why the difference was so high is that:
- Women usually do not want as much salary and do not demand as much as males do
- The statistics were based on the AVERAGE SALARY of men and women. There are more men in high-earning jobs so therefore they will quite likely earn more.
- Women can get pregnant even during their studies and may not be able to finish them and therefore be uneducated and earn less money
So the statistic was a "lie" (it presented the truth in a very untruthful way). The way you do the research is what defines its value. I can't tell how the Australian ones are done but I think they are done quite like the one I used as an example and it might have some "misinformation" in it as it doesn't present the results clearly.
Janitsu wrote:
Women usually do not want as much salary and do not demand as much as males do
The first part of that sentence is a stereotype and purely based upon your own views of women not needing as much money as men. However, the second part is correct; assertive women are not valued in business, hence if they ask or demand a higher salary, they are less successful in getting it than men. Confidence/assertiveness is a masculine trait and considered unsavory on a woman.
Janitsu wrote:
The statistics were based on the AVERAGE SALARY of men and women. There are more men in high-earning jobs so therefore they will quite likely earn more.
Yes. That's the point. Women don't get promoted, and overall, don't get paid as much as men. If you read further you would know that it doesn't matter that the results have been averages, as even female doctors are paid less than male doctors, for example. Women are paid less, regardless of the job they are employed in.
Janitsu wrote:
Women can get pregnant even during their studies and may not be able to finish them and therefore be uneducated and earn less money
This is a little insulting on many levels, but mainly the fact that your sentence assumes that pregnancy stops a woman from being able to study and learn. The fact of the matter is, a brother and sister (twins) could attend the same schools, the same university, complete the same degree, with the same grades, get a position in the same company, but over time, the male twin will end up earning more than the female twin.
Janitsu wrote:
So the statistic was a "lie" (it presented the truth in a very untruthful way).
I studied one year of psychology at university, which required the study of statistics. There are many sources out there that are untrustworthy and full of bad statistics. This source is not one of them; it does not skew the data and it discusses all trends (increase/decrease of gender pay gap etc). The document merely informs the reader that due to ingrained social perceptions of women, women are paid less across the board due to a number of reasons. In the end, it doesn't matter what those reasons are, because the statistics don't lie - women are being paid less.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Dictating when a woman can or can not get pregnant is pretty much discrimination.
Nope. It's not discrimination at all. Discrimination is being deliberately and unjustly treated for a particular quality you have. In this case, you are trying to say it's with the sex. But rather, the terms are EXACTLY THE SAME as males. In this case, the condition of employment we are going with is to not become pregnant. Since males don't have the biological function to do so, there's no risk of this being reneged. It's merely a biological advantage in looking for employment. If a female agrees to the contract, that's HER initiative not to get pregnant.
Searz wrote:
Why would it be? If it interferes with a persons work then anything is fair game for the employer. It is after all the employer that is giving her money to work, if said work cannot be fulfilled I think it would be rather stupid not to consider that.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Lol, that's my point, it's discrimination. You can't just choose not to hire someone because maybe they'd get pregnant. Just like you can't choose to not hire a disabled person because their "disability will interfere with their work". That's discriminatory. I don't make the rules, that's just how they stand; you can be sued for defending your employee choices with "their fat would interfere with work" or "his skin colour doesn't match our decor".
It's not discrimination at all. You get paid for the work you do. That's the fundamental of meritocracy. If you take time off due to pregnancy, why should you be paid for work you don't do? A lot of employment are lucky that pregnancy leave + pay is given. Again, choosing an employee based on whether or not they may or may not get pregnant isn't discrimination, but rather, it's pragmatism.
There are also other jobs where it's in the description that you can't be fat and even in some cases, a particular skin colour. For the former, take athletes, for example. If you are competing on a team, and you are dropped because you're fat, is that discrimination? No! It's because your physique gets in the way of your performance. Want to sue me? I'd like to see you try.
For the latter, imagine as a director, you are casting the role of an East Asian lead, who's skin tone has to be only lightly tanned. You can't very well cast a black person, can you? That would just be severely disadvantageous for the job.
Searz wrote:
There's this pretty convenient thing called contraception(after-the-fact).
jhoijhoi wrote:
Mmm, so what about people who can't take the morning after pill because it is against their religious beliefs to terminate a pregnancy? Again, asking an employee to terminate their child as it is violating their contract is discrimination.
Again, it is not. It is not the fault of the employer that you got raped (I assume. if so, then that's a different crime anyway) and even less his fault that you violate the terms of employment by valuing your religion more. In fact, letting this slide and letting you work despite your pregnancy, which will undoubtedly at some point interfere with your work, he will end up offering a subpar service to customers. If he's forced into keeping an employee because he can't 'discriminate', it will leave his business at a big disadvantage which, in turn, will serve as a disadvantage for the employee. I hate to say it so coldly, but if you sign a contract with the terms that you don't get pregnant, but then value non-contraception because of personal belief when you get raped, then that's on you, not the employer. You understood what you agreed to and are now crying 'discrimination' because you yourself refuse to adhere to the terms? Not to sound heartless, but that's pretty damn selfish to want the best of all situations for yourself even when things go badly.
Sirell, first off, you raise some good points and I appreciate you bringing them up.
Yes, it is discrimination. The quality that females have is the ability to get pregnant. "From a human rights perspective, women have the right to be free from discrimination in the work place on the basis of their pregnancy, or deemed potential pregnancy." You are saying that just because women can get pregnant, it's okay for a contract to be written wherein the woman is not allowed to get pregnant. Whilst I'm not arguing that there aren't scenarios where contracts like this might exist (porn stars, actors, whatever), in a normal employment contract it WOULD be discrimination to not hire a woman just because she plans on becoming pregnant in the near future. That was my point.
"Potential pregnancy means discrimination against employees who may become pregnant or who are believed to be pregnant." Pragmatism is a belief that a certain way is more practical; do you really believe a pregnant woman is less capable of performing a job to the same level as before the pregnancy? Does a woman suddenly become incapacitated during pregnancy? In terms of practicality, sure, it can be practical to have a man at work 9-5 every day for a year, as opposed to a woman having to leave after a certain time - but this practically completely ignores how successful the woman makes the company.
There's a difference between discrimination and suitability for a job. "Denying someone employment, or disallowing one from applying for a job, is often recognized as employment discrimination when the grounds for such an exclusion is not related to the requirements of the position, and protected characteristics may include age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, height etc". I was merely referring to the idea that a fat man may not be hired to be a salesperson due to his weight. Not that the fat man was denied the right to participate in the Olypmics ;)
And this sort of thinking is what is holding back progression. Women are fully capable of performing their duties up to a point during pregnancy (strippers and manual laborers excluded). Your statement assumes that a woman's work standard becomes subpar sometime during pregnancy. Where do you get that opinion from? Agreeably, there may be a disadvantage of the loss of an employee, but many employees leave employment at any time; at least you have a few months warning :P
I have to sleep now, early morning tomorrow, so won't be able to reply til a fair bit later. This discussion is great and I'm enjoying the back and forth of conversation. With this thread I merely wanted to raise awareness of the gender pay gap, and it's great that other facets of the problem are being explored.
sirell wrote:
Nope. It's not discrimination at all. Discrimination is being deliberately and unjustly treated for a particular quality you have.
Yes, it is discrimination. The quality that females have is the ability to get pregnant. "From a human rights perspective, women have the right to be free from discrimination in the work place on the basis of their pregnancy, or deemed potential pregnancy." You are saying that just because women can get pregnant, it's okay for a contract to be written wherein the woman is not allowed to get pregnant. Whilst I'm not arguing that there aren't scenarios where contracts like this might exist (porn stars, actors, whatever), in a normal employment contract it WOULD be discrimination to not hire a woman just because she plans on becoming pregnant in the near future. That was my point.
sirell wrote:
Again, choosing an employee based on whether or not they may or may not get pregnant isn't discrimination, but rather, it's pragmatism.
"Potential pregnancy means discrimination against employees who may become pregnant or who are believed to be pregnant." Pragmatism is a belief that a certain way is more practical; do you really believe a pregnant woman is less capable of performing a job to the same level as before the pregnancy? Does a woman suddenly become incapacitated during pregnancy? In terms of practicality, sure, it can be practical to have a man at work 9-5 every day for a year, as opposed to a woman having to leave after a certain time - but this practically completely ignores how successful the woman makes the company.
sirell wrote:
There are also other jobs where it's in the description that you can't be fat and even in some cases, a particular skin colour.
There's a difference between discrimination and suitability for a job. "Denying someone employment, or disallowing one from applying for a job, is often recognized as employment discrimination when the grounds for such an exclusion is not related to the requirements of the position, and protected characteristics may include age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, height etc". I was merely referring to the idea that a fat man may not be hired to be a salesperson due to his weight. Not that the fat man was denied the right to participate in the Olypmics ;)
sirell wrote:
In fact, letting this slide and letting you work despite your pregnancy, which will undoubtedly at some point interfere with your work, he will end up offering a subpar service to customers. If he's forced into keeping an employee because he can't 'discriminate', it will leave his business at a big disadvantage which, in turn, will serve as a disadvantage for the employee.
And this sort of thinking is what is holding back progression. Women are fully capable of performing their duties up to a point during pregnancy (strippers and manual laborers excluded). Your statement assumes that a woman's work standard becomes subpar sometime during pregnancy. Where do you get that opinion from? Agreeably, there may be a disadvantage of the loss of an employee, but many employees leave employment at any time; at least you have a few months warning :P
I have to sleep now, early morning tomorrow, so won't be able to reply til a fair bit later. This discussion is great and I'm enjoying the back and forth of conversation. With this thread I merely wanted to raise awareness of the gender pay gap, and it's great that other facets of the problem are being explored.
You need to log in before commenting.
Don't get me wrong, being a mother can definitely benefit you in certain jobs, such as childcare, but in terms of corporate or other jobs, not so.