If companies actually did pay women less for equal work, why would they hire men at all?

prabeast · 2013-06-10T06:16:00+00:00

I've used an argument similar to this in debates talking about 'quotas for minorities' (including women) in certain workplaces.

Whenever I read women getting paid less for equal work, often there are several hidden facts in there... men are more likely to work overtime, work holidays, work night shifts, etc. Also, frequently "equal work" means "in the same industry" and does not make a distinction between say a head software engineer or a basic coder for an IT firm.

A lot of these statistics are based on yearly wages, which makes no sense. There was a good Globe and Mail article recently that showed in several fields (nursing was one memorable example) women make more than men according their metrics.

However, this myth, which was probably derived entirely on improper statistical measures that hit mainstream media, seems to perpetuate.

I'm in the geology field, and it's insane how much easier it is for a woman to get a job. Women know this. Several of these companies are small -- 5-10 people -- and having a few women in the team is great for their PR and their image. I've seen statistics in geology where the female pay is less, but I think that's entirely based on experience which dictates pay in geology -- women in geology are fairly new as a group as it's traditionally marketed as a career path for males.

rottingchrist · 2013-06-10T08:02:10+00:00

The oppression argument from feminists is groundless because businesses have a long history of employing poor and non-legal immigrants who are willing to work for less, regardless of how much social difficulty the immigrants face.

The feminist claim is insulting to groups that have been genuinely socially disadvantaged because it aims to present well off middle class women as being treated worse by employers than people who are desperate enough to brave breaking laws and struggling in an alien culture just to make a living.

7wap · 2013-06-10T08:32:58+00:00

is this not at least a useful and compelling argument?

No, not really. It relies on the idea that the wage gap is a result of conscious and intentional discrimination rather than an unconscious and systemic bias. Use that argument against any feminist and I can almost guarantee you that this is the first point they will bring up.

Hyden_Zeke · 2013-06-10T10:16:45+00:00

Gonna play devil's advocate here, but perhaps the wage difference implies a difference in output? That is, if the wage difference existed let's say in jobs that require heavy lifting and physical strain.

KingOfEggsAndBacon · 2013-06-10T05:39:35+00:00

You already said the word "logic" - it does not apply to feminists.

Edit:

I know a couple of left-wing (some rather radical and extreme) people who are, of course, extremely feminist.

And of course these people also believe that the world we live in is a capitalist one.

So, what is the case, now?

Men want to make money? They would hire only women to pay less.

Men want to oppress women? They would only hire men and have to pay more.

And they go apeshit if I go full troll on them and say that maybe women are simply worse at everything when compared to men, and that they simply deserve less money as a result.

Stephen_Morgan · 2013-06-10T12:10:42+00:00

I agree with you, but it's not a good argument. For starters, men have a higher unemployment rate than women.

logrusmage · 2013-06-10T15:55:14+00:00

This single argument basically shreds the entire concept of the general pay gap.

dungone · 2013-06-10T19:19:27+00:00

Actually that's exactly what scabs are for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker While I agree with the general thrust of the argument, I don't like it when it gets distilled down to a talking point such as the title of your post. It's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that employers might get some benefit in discriminating against women, if they could find a way to use it to bring down men's wages as well. That probably wouldn't be too far off from the truth of what has happened with every new group of people trying to enter the workforce - whether women, immigrants, or overseas workers in sweatshops.

ZimbaZumba · 2013-06-10T13:10:13+00:00

Please don't quote arguments for which there are no responses, it makes people feel 'threatened'. That is why we need Safe Spaces. \s

Ephemradio · 2013-06-10T09:08:30+00:00

Maybe there is a subconscious value judgement among whoever does the HR that women aren't as reliable? Maybe they want to avoid maternity leave? Maybe the company's hiring policy isn't completely logical.

You can't make a compelling conclusion about what does not exist in reality with this argument because the premises are so shaky.

galtthedestroyer · 2013-06-10T15:47:48+00:00

Because of the old boys network. A hiring manager might prefer to hire men but doesn't have adequate funding to hire enough men, so HE hires some women. Of course HE can't hire only women because he has to have at least some people that do a great job. Anyway HE has to have at least someone to talk sports and make sexist misogynistic jokes with at the water cooler.

I guarantee some feminists believe this.

cypher197 · 2013-06-10T19:16:16+00:00

Since this is not the case, gender based pay inequality logically doesn't exist.

While I understand your argument, since not all actors behave rationally, you need empirical evidence to make a real argument on this issue. (For example, you (hypothetically) could have someone who actually is misogynist who pays women less just because they distrust women.) Other MRAs have provided empirical evidence elsewhere, and that should be used in lieu of this argument.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-06-10T15:08:01+00:00

They wouldn't. The claim is entirely nonsensical.

Sovereign_Individual · 2013-06-10T05:49:13+00:00

I know it's learnliberty but it makes this point. I also read an essay by Henry Hazlitt detailing this. It was addressed at marx and discussed worker discrimination being destroyed by the free market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-06-10T10:03:09+00:00

[permanently deleted]

hockeyrugby · 2013-06-10T14:50:11+00:00

This is what Warren Farell claims is his "revelation" in a 2020 grind my gears style interview.

rightsbot · 2013-06-10T05:34:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

mikesteane · 2013-06-11T12:15:09+00:00

Couldn't be simpler could it?

metafilter_sucks · 2013-06-10T13:01:15+00:00

You structure your argument as if you have some airtight mathematical proof there, it really really isn't. For one, you incorrectly assume "companies are for the most part logical", etc. and that those are the only factors involved in choosing pay. Do you honestly believe there are no employees that get paid less for equal work? You don't think that if that there are two men doing the same work, that the the taller/more popular/more attractive isn't more likely to get paid more?

Do you even think about how pay is chosen? A company is not a monolithic entity, it is made of many people making decisions that many of the others often do not pay attention to. And then there are people in separate companies but in the same industry.

Besides, in previous generations women were inarguably and openly paid less than men for the same jobs. For instance an old lady, 80 or 90 years old, I met told me about working at one of the big defense contractors back in her day, she made fully half of what her male coworkers made.

Title	If companies actually did pay women less for equal work, why would they hire men at all?
Author	Lobsterragefist54
Upvotes	115
Comments	90
Date	June 10, 2013 5:32 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1g11vg/if_companies_actually_did_pay_women_less_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/if-companies-actually-did-pay-women-less-for-equal.1171674 https://theredarchive.com/post/1171674

Comments