The lost boys: how a generation of young men fell behind women on pay
The lost boys: how a generation of young men fell behind women on pay
A sobering report details their struggles before primary school even begins, a dearth of role models and the decline of blue-collar jobs
You're viewing a single thread.
ha, its not a pay gap. its an occupation gap. there are more unemployed men because the united states has been shipping traditionally male-dominated jobs oversees causing higher unemployment for that group. they are using that to pretend there is a pay gap.
you want to solve this, then start convincing men to take jobs in traditionally female-dominated spaces.
Thank you for pointing out the flaw in the comments, let's not let Lemmy turn into MGTOW or some shit
Lmao, "the occupation gap" is literally a MRA talking point
Actual feminists acknowledge that a pay gap can be (partially) driven by differences in occupations between the genders
A_Union_of_Kobolds
What's this? Another group of kobolds? How quaint!
Hey now I've been here - oh I see.
:ahem: in that case, our Union Floor is currently housed in Sigil, if you're interested in signing a card.
Ooh, how exotic! We've never been to Sigil! Or away from our native plane at all, for that matter. Maybe we can find a way to attend...
The article mentions a number of troubling ways boys are doing worse than girls. Rates of suicide are much higher. There's a gap in educational attainment:
On average, across every subject at GCSE, boys’ results are half a grade lower than girls’. At A-level, girls outperform boys by an average of more than a grade and a half across their best three subjects. Boys are also twice as likely as girls to be excluded from school, while in British universities, female students outnumber males by three to two.
In decades past, we rightly built programs to ensure that girls received a good schooling and were prepared for post secondary education. Boys need similar programs.
And despite this women on average are paid less than men. The results you mention are very old. They are at least 30 years old.
Still, those numbers are hiding important details, like how men outnumber women in stem for example in crazy numbers, like 9 to 1. And those domains where men outnumber women are way, way better paid. They are also hiding how women on average are not promoted as much as men despite better performances or degrees, and they don't reach as high positions in companies than men.
Oh, and I'd be surprised if women who choose to stay at home to raise children were considered as unemployed the way all men are.
Those issues need to be addressed as well.
Yeah, you can just look at what happens when men do take jobs in female-dominated industries: https://www.ecu.edu.au/newsroom/articles/research/female-nurses-face-significant-gender-pay-gap
I don't really like how this article is presented.
New research from Edith Cowan University (ECU) found that a gender pay gap of 4% existed at the six-month mark, widening to 13% at the three-year mark
In this study, men at three years earned $39.50 per hour compared to women who earned $38 per hour
That's a 4% gap at 3 years when looking at hourly wage. It's still bad but not 13%. Someone working more hours should be paid more in total, no?
The findings show men could be receiving penalty payments associated with working weekends and non-sociable hours, with women partaking in Dr Doleman's study working on average 32 hours a week, compared to the men, who worked 36 hours a week
What about men and women at 3 years? The gap in hours must be smaller, as this would imply a 17% gap at 3 years, not a 13% one: ($39.5 * 36) / ($38 * 32) ≈ 1.17.
Still, if men work worse hours, shouldn't they be paid more on average? I'm unsure about Australia but hours worked during night-shift on Sundays or on holidays must legally have increased pay in Germany (up to 190% from 12 am to 4 am on Christmas for example. It's also tax-exempt!).
Assuming the reason why fewer women work these hours is childcare (which it frequently is) then access to affordable childcare should be expanded. But that's not an issue with more men in female-dominated issues but rather a systemic problem imo.
Furthermore, research has found that men were being promoted more quickly following graduation and that there was a disproportionate number of men sitting in executive roles within the healthcare institutions.
Yeah, that's bad. I do wonder whether "quickly" refers to "total hours worked" or "time employed" as men work more hours on average. Women should be promoted as quickly as men based on total hours of experience. The executive issue still remains though.
[H]ealthcare institutions should consider alternative working arrangements for female nurses.
A minor nitpick: the suggestion at the bottom should apply to every nurse, regardless of gender. After all, everyone would benefit from being able to work more flexible shifts - be it nurses, their children or their patients (the last one because nobody can keep high care standards for 12 hours).