We have all the rights men have. The wage gap was debunked. There’s a wage gap because females typically pick different professions. Ladies, you aren’t opressed.
Every profession that becomes female-dominated loses prestige and wages, for no reason other than it gets seen as “feminine” amd therefore easier.
Love to see you try to produce some evidence of that.
Study explaining how jobfields that become filled with women end up losing prestige and wages. (They also verified whether the “jobfields that lose wages end up being filled with women” theory was true or not. The result was “NOT”.)
Study explaining how fields women-dominated end up being seen as “soft” and “easy”.
The study literally says “We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.” Which is a way of saying “We see that fields where women work are lower wage than they were 50 years ago, but we don’t actually know if it’s because women are in those fields; because the amount of women in a given field doesn’t seem to affect the raise or lowering of wages.” Which the second article somewhat explains but the language throughout the article indicates otherwise. The presentation of this study in the articles honestly shows a lot of confirmation bias.
(Sorry for the long response coming after this, I wanted to make an analysis of the study as well; because it actually was one of the most well developed gender studies I’ve seen as of late):
The article compared data between 1950 and 2000. The study explains that it accounted for changes within the value of the dollar, education, work experience, skills, race, and geography; in reference to two things: a gendered labor queue, and devaluation of work done by women.
But what they didn’t account for is other possible changes that caused wages in those job fields to lower or higher (and they do explain this, that is part of why they say the second half of their hypothesis is unproven).
They use computer programming, a male dominated field, as an example as to why men are privileged in means of wages; the value of computer programmers has gone way up since 1950. Well. That’s not because it’s a male dominated field. Thats because the technology for computer programing has advanced within the last 50 years and there has been a higher demand for programmers. That’s obvious.
There next example for men is Architect. Which is another field that has seen huge technological leaps. You know those vintage 1950′s themed restaurants that everybody loves? Just compare those to any other restaurant we see now adays, the architecture has changed a lot. There have been advancements in things insolation, roofing, windows, safety exits, hurricane and flood resistance, implementation of electricity including solar, etc. I could probably go on all day about how much better buildings are now from the 1950′s.
They also compare similar professions like janitors (usually men) and housecleaners (usually women). They don’t mention that janitors are normally hired by large companies or corporations to clean, not to mention a lot of custodial workers do more than clean; and housecleaners are normally self-employed or work for very small home businesses (I know this. My mom is a self-employed housecleaner, I grew up working with her.).
The most major thing that I really have to criticize about the article in context to the study though: They talk about examples of women dominated fields that are undervalued; food servers, housekeepers and child-care workers. Which they compare to male dominated fields that are high paid: chief executives, architects and computer engineers. Well. I would think that it’s pretty obvious why housekeepers and childcare workers are paid less than Architects and Chief Executives. Two of these take years of education, job experience, and connections. Two of these can be self employed businesses which just require some degree of skill and maintenance. There is a lot of confirmation bias int he article.
Personally, I’m a women who has worked as all three of the above fields as a food server, housekeeper, and child-care worker. When I worked in child care I had just gotten out of highschool and it was my second job because I was tired of fast food. I was making more money than most of my male friends who were entering the job field working fast food because working in childcare wasn’t considered “manly” and they were unlikely to be hired. So I kind of see how things can go both ways. The study specifically says “Women have moved into historically male jobs much more in white-collar fields than in blue-collar ones. Yet the gender pay gap is largest in higher-paying white-collar jobs” Which I think they completely had sufficient evidence for and needs to be addressed. Because that specific rage of fields did prove both their theory of a gendered labor queue, and devaluation; but only within those specific fields.
Overall it’s a really good study though; in every social study there is going to be room for criticism and marginal error, and they did a good job at explaining the parts that I’m criticizing.
Problem is you’re pretending like the data shows something that it specifically says it doesn’t. In you exact words “jobfields that become filled with women end up losing prestige and wages” BUT NO. NO NO NO. They SPECIFICALLYexplain that the gendered labor queue doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if the job field is “filled with women”, it matters if women are in the field. And newsflash: Almost every job field saw in increase in women after the 1950′s, they explained this to you. That is why they brought attention to the fact that half of their study was inconclusive and half of their hypothesis went unproven.
You’re either willingly lying about the study, or didn’t actually take the time to read it.
Oh yeah, @aridara I don’t have time to get to the second study yet. I’ll get to it later.
Hey I’m back and
@aridara Congratulations. Not only is this study from 70/30YEARS ago, It literally has nothing to do with what you were talking about.
You have discovered one of the many studies meant to confirm Schelling’s research, which he used in his paper “Micromotives and Macrobehavior”, which he published in 1978. His theory was about segregation, not technically oppression, but of course that was included in his paper. Notably, his paper was centered around racial segregation, but looked into all forms of segregation. What was REALLY interesting about his paper is he discussed how segregationist mentalities normally go both ways between any two groups.
Do you know what Schelling’s study is even about? His study literally talks about how and why women actively choose the job fields that they enter. That’s what the whole “social tipping point” theory is based on you egg!!! It has NOTHING to do with what you were talking about. The study you’re talking about points out that his numerical model was correct.
You know what your study proves? That women didn’t enter job fields from 1940-1990 that had a high concentration of sexist men. No shit. Do you know how much social opinion has changed? IT’S BEEN 70/30 YEARS??!! It was a different time. Get your shit straight and stop lying @aridara
Site Title 