What does redpill think about this study indicating bias when it comes to gender wage gaps?

mrcs84usn · 2015-10-31T14:28:23+00:00

Between Men and women:

which one is more likely to work part time?
which one is more likely to take off work for personal reasons?
which one is more likely to have children and completely drop out of working?
which one is more likely to file sexual harassment suits?

Speaking strictly from a business standpoint, hiring a woman (especially of childbearing age) is a liability. As unPC as it may be, employers know this. Businesses are trying to turn a profit. They aren't too keen on things that take away from that.

Articles like this and blogs like this suggest that women don't even want to help out the sisterhood for various reasons.

Interestingly, I've heard/read plenty of gossip from male-dominated spaces saying they have no problem with women, assuming they can actually pull their weight.

ThorLives · 2015-11-01T00:10:33+00:00

I think that women do see a small wage gap. Based on studies I've heard, the wage gap (after accounting for other factors, like education and career choice) is about 5%. Now, it's not a foregone conclusion that this is gender discrimination. It's possible that there's a factor which hasn't been included in the analysis. Some people think the 5% gap is based on women being less likely to negotiate for a higher salary when hired. (And feminists then say that women don't negotiate as hard as men because it goes against their socially-taught gender role of being 'nice'.) Who knows. Whatever the case, this is dramatically smaller than the 23% which is generally reported as sexual discrimination. What this says to me is that, when there is discrimination, it's common practice to exaggerate the size of that discrimination.

One thing I've learned, though, is to be skeptical of these kinds of stories. Why? Because there is a particular narrative among feminists, the media, and academia that says that women are unfairly discriminated against. As a result, if a study is done which shows no discrimination or pro-female discrimination, it will get buried. It won't show up in the media. The researchers might not even publish it. This is called the "file drawer effect".

Further, because academia has a belief about discrimination against women, they will seek to find that conclusion. Why? Because it's a "good story" and it confirms (left-leaning) people's pre-existing beliefs about the world. This is especially prevalent among feminist researchers. I saw a paper a while back where they did something similar - fictional students with a variety of male/female, white/black/hispanic/asian/indian names sending letters to professors to ask about working with them. The media widely reported the story as "professors were dramatically more likely to respond to white male students than anyone else". The reality, though - and I know this because I actually looked up the paper - was that there was very little discrimination against many of fictional students who were not white males. What the study actually found was that, at private universities, white males did have a higher response rate (by about 6% over white females and hispanic females, and larger percentages compared to other gender/racial groups). (Asian and Indian students suffered the lowest response rates - by about 15-20% lower than white males.)

However, at public universities (where the majority of students actually go), white women, hispanic women, and black women had the highest response rates (by about 3%-4%) over white males, hispanic males, and black males. There seemed to be a pro-female bias at public universities. When you combine all the public and private university numbers together, white males, white female, and hispanic females had identical response rates. Did any of this get reported in the media? Nope. They media continued to tout the (fictional) claim that white males were dramatically more likely to get a response than any other gender/racial group. When the lead researcher was interviewed (a woman, by the way), even she continued to push the narrative that white males were privileged over everyone else. But, none of it was true. This made me think that the researcher was a feminist, and she was pushing the standard "women and minorities are oppressed, white males have it great" narrative.

It was shocking. It also teaches you to be skeptical about these kinds of reports.

NalkaNalka · 2015-10-31T12:43:46+00:00

A few things to consider:

I rarely trust studies that are out to "prove a point" I happen to know how easy it is to manipulate methedology to get the desired results.

When thinking of bias we must also consider that in some fields and positions men are actualy on averge better then woman with the same credentials. The same goes for woman in other áreas. I know that it is blasphamy to some who religiously hold to the dogma that men and woman have the exact same aptitudes attitudes, skills, motivation and time to dedícate to the job.

We must also remember that woman are more prone to credentialism than men. So it is more likely for men to not have the credentials to match their skills.

Men and woman in general have different amounts of time they are willing to dedícate to a Project above and beyond the basic required amount.

(For the easly triggered: degrees, exceptions, generlizations etc etc don't sperg read this)

MoneyOverSluts · 2015-10-31T16:47:59+00:00

Women have families and often prioritize family over work. There are consequences for this.

alreadyredschool · 2015-10-31T11:29:16+00:00

Explain this study, tl; dr and some discussion points.

wub1234 · 2015-10-31T18:21:05+00:00

This is certainly an interesting study. But this was a particularly notable paragraph:

It is noteworthy that female faculty members were just as likely as their male colleagues to favor the male student. The fact that faculty members’ bias was independent of their gender, scientific discipline, age, and tenure status suggests that it is likely unintentional, generated from widespread cultural stereotypes rather than a conscious intention to harm women (17). Additionally, the fact that faculty participants reported liking the female more than the male student further underscores the point that our results likely do not reflect faculty members’ overt hostility toward women. Instead, despite expressing warmth toward emerging female scientists, faculty members of both genders appear to be affected by enduring cultural stereotypes about women’s lack of science competence that translate into biases in student evaluation and mentoring.

My question immediately would be...why did women discriminate against women? Could there be another explanation for this other than gender discrimination? Are there any weaknesses in this study? Did we fail to account for something?

I don't see any of these questions addressed, so we can only really assert a correlation here, but I will say it is an interesting correlation. It doesn't prove anything.

disposable_pants · 2015-10-31T21:17:39+00:00

People are initially skeptical of women's competency, but are automatically nicer to them right off the bat. People initially assume men's competency, but have no problem getting angry at them.

This difference can work well for women -- as soon as they prove competency, they're at an advantage -- but right off the bat it's harder for them in fields where specialized knowledge is a must.

ianiemasns · 2015-10-31T15:22:17+00:00

The wage gap argument is at best myopic cherrypicking.

Lets say that, yes, men make more money. Men are also judged on their wealth in a way that women are not. Men are the majority of on the job injuries and death. Men almost exclusively do all of the low paid, high risk, unpleasant jobs. When divorced, a man can be made financially responsible for a woman for the rest of his life and can be put in jail if he is unable to pay what a biased court says he continues to owe her (even if she initiated the divorce). All accounts from online dating correlate with the idea that making more money makes a man more attractive to women. Men work longer hours than women and make up about 90% of overtime hours worked. Men travel farther and endure more stress and work more inconvenient hours.

In other words, yes, men make more money because they are incentivized to do so, and sacrifice their own personal happiness to make money.

Employers prefer men because they realize that men are incentivized to make more money, thus making them more exploitable workers.

TheKickboxingGuy · 2015-10-31T12:19:51+00:00

I think that's pretty clear evidence there is a gender bias in the science fields against women, in the same way there is a gender bias in the education fields against men.

Unfortunately, I think the only cure for something like this is time. As more women enter STEM fields and prove their ability, as difficult as it may be, the amount of opportunities will rise. As much as people like to try to say otherwise, perception isn't something that can be easily changed by policy.

RacialRealism · 2015-11-01T07:48:37+00:00

Stereotypes exist for a reason. The employers simply found, through experience, that men where better employees. No suprise to any Red Piller. I'm not suprised that there is a gap, yet I don't blame it on discrimination, rather I put it up to women not being as suited for the job at hand and have yet to prove otherwise.

lolobviously · 2015-11-01T11:59:49+00:00

Also you have to consider whether the person who has the grades or qualification on that resume earned it or if it was given to them through some equality regime.

betterdeadthanbeta · 2015-10-31T13:11:26+00:00

I find it obvious that there would be wage gaps based on whatever biases people hold, not only related to gender (race is another common example) which translates to pay checks and opportunities.

I have a question for you OP, but others can answer too.

If one group is factually, ie, statistically, known to work longer hours and stay at one job longer. (Which is in fact, the case for men.) And then employers set starting salaries higher for this group in expectation that they will perform higher. Is that still 'bias'?

If so, how do we fix bias, other than by making men work less hard than women? Because, employers are not dumb. They are not going to make politically correct, but less profitable choices unless absolutely forced to do so. If they know one group tends to work harder and is less likely to quit out, take maternal leave, etc., they are going to offer that group more money to avoid those same employees going to other employers.

Personally, I feel words like bias, gender discrimination, etc make more sense for attitudes that are uninformed/irrational. If I hate all white people because my parents were bigots and believe white people are literally devils, that's one thing, but if I fear white cops because they're statistically more likely to gun me down, is that still bias? Or just rational response to reality?

merciless_smelliot · 2015-10-31T11:45:32+00:00

Good. Things are less grim societally than anticipated. How to build on this and proliferate these standards is the question that remains.

Title	What does redpill think about this study indicating bias when it comes to gender wage gaps?
Author	portmantoux
Upvotes	2
Comments	55
Date	October 31, 2015 11:27 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3qyea5/what_does_redpill_think_about_this_study/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-does-redpill-think-about-this-study.278721 https://theredarchive.com/post/278721

Comments