~ archived since 2018 ~

Female pay gap?

Iron_Termite · 2014-12-18T17:53:50+00:00

Females complain that they get paid marginally less than men. However men make up for 93 percent of all workplace fatalities in America....

Iron_Termite

December 18, 2014

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Female pay gap?
Author	Iron_Termite
Upvotes	0
Comments	43
Date	December 18, 2014 5:53 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2ppa6d/female-pay-gap/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/female-pay-gap.1624034 https://theredarchive.com/post/1624034

Comments

[–]pinkturnstoblu6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cineserf2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iron_Termite1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cineserf2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carny6661 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cineserf1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TkilledJ0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

AAUW has, and I'm sure will, told half truths in the past. They're the ones responsible for claiming a "girls crisis" in schools and take your daughter to work day was their response... Not exactly the best people to be sourcing.

Edit: they decided to create the "girls crisis' based off of a study which concluded that girls go from confident and sure of themselves at 11, but lose this confidence in their teens... Of course no mention of boys, or hormones.

Edit 2: and even when they teamed up with the professor to look further into this, they found that boys are more likely to participate in class discussions at younger age but their participation decreases over time. They found a similar situation in girls, although they participated less from the beginning they were found to be called on more by their teachers. Yet AAUW continually ignored half of the student population.

Edit 3: if you're really interested you can read more about this in the book "The War Against Boys." This information in particular is found on pg. 98 in the latest version.

[–]Iron_Termite-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cineserf6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iron_Termite-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cineserf5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iron_Termite-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaptainJackRackham-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cineserf5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaptainJackRackham-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yelirbear0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iron_Termite-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]manos-fate-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leopoldvonleopoldson-8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]btvsrcks2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leopoldvonleopoldson-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Barely, and it would be better for society if we severely limited the number of women allowed in Med school. One of the huge problems with >50% of Women being in medical school is that very little of them work full time or at all after a short period of time, and since there is a ceiling on the number of people we can put through med school we are already in a situation where women have severely decreased the supply of doctors.

The reason is that most female doctors end up working part-time — usually in general practice — and then retire early. As a result, it is necessary to train two female doctors so they can cover the same amount of work as one full-time colleague. Given that the cost of training a doctor is at least £500,000, are taxpayers getting the best return on their investment? There is another important issue. Women in hospital medicine tend to avoid the more demanding specialities which require greater commitment, have more antisocial working hours and include responsibility for management

[–]SandJA16 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leopoldvonleopoldson-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There's plenty of material on the subject:

Female doctors hurt productivity: Report

The Problem With Female Doctors

In countries where tax payer money subsidizes training the tax payer is getting significantly less return on their investment, is that smart use of public money? At private universities I don't think we could say women cannot train, but studies have shown that women often don't even recoup the value of their education, so the open market would likely find the ideal ratio of men to women in this situation.

Sometimes you have to look at societal good. If we had the capacity to train unlimited doctors it would not be a problem, but we cannot. I'm all for looking at the numbers and determining what ratio of men to women in the field will yield sufficient man hours and making appropriate quotas from that. It's better than poor care for the entire country. Closed thinking is refusing to see that a doctor shortage is looming because it's un-PC to acknowledge the cause.

[–]SandJA12 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you read the first source? There's all kinds of language that doesn't seem to support your logic.

Dr. Mark Baerlocher, the study’s lead author, acknowledged he is tackling a thorny issue, but stressed he does not favour curbing the number of female physicians. Instead, the study calls for greater increases in medical-school enrolment to offset the phenomenon.

The survey found that women, on average, provided 30 hours a week of direct patient care, compared to 35 from men, a result of female doctors — still burdened disproportionately with child rearing and other domestic tasks — doing less on-call work and being more likely to take leaves.

(emphasis mine)

Does this mean you believe that because women are, as the article you sourced indicates, disproportionately burdened with child rearing are then less capable of spending more hours in the office, that it is safe to conclude that they are not as deserving to spend time in the office? In other words, because women spend more time with their families, they should not be able to work. Mens rights is not about limiting rights of females. In fact, it's my belief that men should take more effort to be in the family mix. If men are too busy working and not spending time with family, maybe they should take more time off. I wouldn't want to spend all my time in the office instead of with my wife and kids. This makes me think that you are the type of person that would smack someone but then complain when they smack you back. My lunch is done but I'm not finished with you.

[–]SandJA11 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok. To continue with your misuse of your first source...

The long surgical wait times and lack of family physicians that plague the Canadian health care system are largely blamed on the paucity of doctors.

That means we don't have enough doctors.

Much of the problem is blamed on a decision by provincial governments in the early 1990s to slash medical-school enrolment

More support for lack of doctors

Dr. Robert Ouellette, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said medical schools need to train even more doctors than they do now, but he steered clear of suggesting the lifestyles of female doctors are making the shortage more acute. The new generation of physicians — both male and female — tends to work fewer hours generally than older colleagues, he said. And there is evidence that women spend more time with patients, are better communicators and offer more preventive medicine.

Some indication there that female doctors may even be more effective than males.

After a spate of media coverage of male and female doctors’ different work patterns, the deans of medicine and other senior administrators at the universities of Toronto and Western Ontario wrote an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year that urged “ending the sexist blame game.” “To disparage in any way the intelligent, dedicated women ... who have chosen to devote their lives to medicine is shameful,” they wrote.

Finally

Dr. Baerlocher, a radiology resident at the University of Toronto, said he agrees women should not be blamed, but lamented a general reluctance in the medical profession to examine controversial issues, such as gender differences and abortion.

This article does not support the leap of logic you have expressed. The second article you sourced, is an OP ed. Seriously? You have poor logic and reasoning skills. I would be utterly surprised if you are open to changing your perception when faced with new information on this subject. I would bet that you listen to a lot of people who believe the same as you and think that it means you're right.

[–]leopoldvonleopoldson1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're so dumb. You have to read between the liberal appeasement

The long surgical wait times and lack of family physicians that plague the Canadian health care system are largely blamed on the paucity of doctors.

In the end it's man hours on the job, and women put in less than men, so in a system that creates a limited number of doctors, men are a better choice. This benefits everyone except the small number of women who will no longer get into medical school. It's a simple cost benefit analysis of the greater good.

Dr. Robert Ouellette, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said medical schools need to train even more doctors than they do now, but he steered clear of suggesting the lifestyles of female doctors are making the shortage more acute.

Scared of the liberal wrath. Notice how it always comes up, but no one is wiling to lay their name to the claim?

The new generation of physicians — both male and female — tends to work fewer hours generally than older colleagues, he said.

Women still work less than men. Again appeasing feminists.

And there is evidence that women spend more time with patients, are better communicators and offer more preventive medicine.

It could also mean they are just slower at their jobs. We're only allowed to suggest theories that benefit women, BS. We don't know what the truth is though.

After a spate of media coverage of male and female doctors’ different work patterns, the deans of medicine and other senior administrators at the universities of Toronto and Western Ontario wrote an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year that urged “ending the sexist blame game.” “To disparage in any way the intelligent, dedicated women ... who have chosen to devote their lives to medicine is shameful,” they wrote.

PC garbage. The truth is women work less and it's a problem.

Dr. Baerlocher, a radiology resident at the University of Toronto, said he agrees women should not be blamed, but lamented a general reluctance in the medical profession to examine controversial issues, such as gender differences and abortion.

Haha a woman saying we SHOULD be able to discuss the gender differences and the problem they are creating. She can't say women should be blamed, she's be attacked by feminists relentlessly.

[–]SandJA11 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]leopoldvonleopoldson0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dr. Mark Baerlocher, the study’s lead author, acknowledged he is tackling a thorny issue, but stressed he does not favour curbing the number of female physicians. Instead, the study calls for greater increases in medical-school enrolment to offset the phenomenon.

He's probably just saying that to insulate himself from liberal outrage, but it's not the only solution to the problem. He supports spending more tax money, I don't: we have a free solution. I would also be fine not subsidizing Medical school at all, that would naturally balance the sex ratios when many rational women realize they wont work enough to make it a sound financial investment.

still burdened disproportionately with child rearing and other domestic tasks — doing less on-call work and being more likely to take leaves.

So what? This is reality. Doesn't matter to the people who die in ER waiting rooms why women aren't working.

Did you also read how they avoid being on call and working night shifts? They are actively putting an extra burden on male doctors, who have to pick up the slack.

Does this mean you believe that because women are, as the article you sourced indicates, disproportionately burdened with child rearing are then less capable of spending more hours in the office, that it is safe to conclude that they are not as deserving to spend time in the office? In other words, because women spend more time with their families, they should not be able to work.

If they can't work the hours, they shouldn't have the job. Reason doesn't matter.

Mens rights is not about limiting rights of females.

If men were burdening the system and tax payer money I would be in favor of restricting their enrolment. People have no problem with female enrolment requirements to get more women in whatever field, this is an example where we should establish male enrolment requirements for the benefit of the whole system and society.

[–]SandJA12 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your uname makes me think that /r/redditarmy is leaking.

So what? This is reality. Doesn't matter to the people who die in ER waiting rooms why women aren't working.

Your original reply is about changing reality with your ideas. For you to dismiss women being "disproportionately burdened" by saying "So what? This is reality" shows a lack of any attempt for outside perspective. It's becoming clear that your agenda is all that matters to you. Yes there are people dying in ER rooms but it's not the fault of women. That is a ridiculous and unfair conclusion. The article you sourced points to paucity. Why would you blame just women when it's both genders who are not choosing the doctor lifestyle?

If they can't work the hours, they shouldn't have the job. Reason doesn't matter.

Reason DOES matter. Context matters. That logic is, by definition, without reason.

this is an example where we should establish male enrolment requirements for the benefit of the whole system and society.

Enrollment requirements. I'm sure that will beget the most willing and caring providers. People who really want to be there.

This is dumb. You reek of misogyny.

[–]leopoldvonleopoldson0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For you to dismiss women being "disproportionately burdened" by saying "So what? This is reality" shows a lack of any attempt for outside perspective.

They are burdened by their own choice, the male doctors are burdened by the same choice made by women doctors, not by themselves.

yes there are people dying in ER rooms but it's not the fault of women.

Partially, in that we know there would be a reduction in these deaths if more doctors were men.

Why would you blame just women when it's both genders who are not choosing the doctor lifestyle?

What are you talking about, it's women that choose to work much less.

Reason DOES matter. Context matters. That logic is, by definition, without reason.

It doesn't matted when it kills you. Still we know the reason, they work less because they concentrate more on family. We know they make this choice (no one is making them have kids and work less and refuse to be on call and work late shifts), in large prevalence and that it harms the medical system.

Women wouldn't be represented as high if they had to pay for their own education, it's a bad personal financial decision, and hence a bad tax payer investment. The tax payer is paying for women to be full time doctors but they aren't honouring this commitment making it an insufficient return on the tax payer investment.

[–]SandJA11 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They are burdened by their own choice

Disproportionate, as it's used in the article you sourced, is an important modifier for the word "burden", i.e. males are not as present in the house as females. Is that due to women's choice as well?

in that we know there would be a reduction in these deaths if more doctors were men

Holy craziness.

Why would you blame just women when it's both genders who are not choosing the doctor lifestyle?

What are you talking about, it's women that choose to work much less.

Swing and a miss.

Reason DOES matter. Context matters. That logic is, by definition, without reason.

It doesn't matted when it kills you.

Please don't forget that reason is vital to logic.

Still we know the reason, they work less because they concentrate more on family. We know they make this choice (no one is making them have kids and work less and refuse to be on call and work late shifts), in large prevalence and that it harms the medical system.

How is it that "women's fault" is the ONLY conclusion to be made? Can there not be other solutions? A family consists of multiple units. Each member must make compromises when necessary to further the purpose of the family. Must it be only women who can watch over family? Are you really considering all possibilities for causes of this problem?

The tax payer is paying for women to be full time doctors

Gonna need some sources. And credible ones at that or else you'll start to sound like those south park characters: "Der terk er jerbs!"

[–]leopoldvonleopoldson2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Disproportionate, as it's used in the article you sourced, is an important modifier for the word "burden", i.e. males are not as present in the house as females. Is that due to women's choice as well?

Of course, they choose their partner. They could choose an employed guy to take care of the kids, you know like many men do.

Holy craziness.

More doctor man hours = better quality service = less preventable deaths.

Swing and a miss.

No women do work less.

Please don't forget that reason is vital to logic.

You can make logical conclusions about a phenomena without knowing the source of it. If we had to know why everything happened before we ever make a logical choice, we pretty much could never do anything. In this case however we know the reason: Women prioritize family over work. This is their own choice, so there's no need to excuse them from the consequences, and simply pass the cost on to the taxpayer. Either make everyone pay for medical school entirely, or find the amount of men required for the appropriate man hours and set that quota. Both options will yield the same result.

How is it that "women's fault" is the ONLY conclusion to be made? Can there not be other solutions? A family consists of multiple units. Each member must make compromises when necessary to further the purpose of the family. Must it be only women who can watch over family? Are you really considering all possibilities for causes of this problem?

There are other solutions, but none that are something the government should engage in. The government does not belong in our homes telling husband and wives how to share responsibility for children, but it does have a place in making sure we have sufficient medical care at the best cost their citizens. The tax payer pays to create doctors, the government is responsible for making sure we get the appropriate man hours out of the investment.

Gonna need some sources. And credible ones at that or else you'll start to sound like those south park characters: "Der terk er jerbs!"

We found that, for over half of woman doctors in our data, the NPV of becoming a primary-care physician was less than the NPV of becoming a physician assistant

You're condescending bull shit only hurts your persuasiveness and makes you seem stupid.

[–]SandJA10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iron_Termite0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SandJA11 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iron_Termite1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SandJA11 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]btvsrcks2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SandJA12 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dudeguy3332 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link