http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
Surely this study effectively debunks the myth of there being pay inequality this day and age?
I can't help but feel that Ann Pickering has missed the point, that come the 30s most women will probably be becoming a mother which inevitably means that those full-time mums skew the statistics. As consequence there are less women to fill those senior positions simply because there are less women.
Now, I'm not saying that discrimination may not still exist in some spheres (it seems here that they're suggesting that it's evident at the senior levels) but surely that is not evidence of a pay gap, especially if women are in fact, earning more than men now?
Without looking closer, I'd assume causally speaking that women may be surging ahead either due to stereotypical career options (have certain industries been booming?) or more likely due to the fact that girls are doing better than boys in education at present.
I particularly dislike this statement:
Firstly, I dislike it as it's attempting to play top-trumps with people's suffering. It's all relative.
Secondly, it doesn't at all take a moment to understand how the economic downturn has psychologically effected gender types. Men for example -- stereotypically speaking -- tend to need to feel that they're useful or otherwise needed; it's part of masculinity. To be surplus to requirement, or unneeded (i.e. underemployed or unemployed) can be very psychologically damaging to a man's sense of well-being. Likewise, what about the support that women tend to receive versus men? Men tend to bottle up and are expected to get on with it, whereas women don't have such a pressure and support is more forthcoming. Furthermore, being underemployed can be really detrimental for a man's relationship chances. For women, it's less so.
It's nonsense.
Thoughts?
Surely this study effectively debunks the myth of there being pay inequality this day and age?
I can't help but feel that Ann Pickering has missed the point, that come the 30s most women will probably be becoming a mother which inevitably means that those full-time mums skew the statistics. As consequence there are less women to fill those senior positions simply because there are less women.
Now, I'm not saying that discrimination may not still exist in some spheres (it seems here that they're suggesting that it's evident at the senior levels) but surely that is not evidence of a pay gap, especially if women are in fact, earning more than men now?
Without looking closer, I'd assume causally speaking that women may be surging ahead either due to stereotypical career options (have certain industries been booming?) or more likely due to the fact that girls are doing better than boys in education at present.
I particularly dislike this statement:
Firstly, I dislike it as it's attempting to play top-trumps with people's suffering. It's all relative.
Secondly, it doesn't at all take a moment to understand how the economic downturn has psychologically effected gender types. Men for example -- stereotypically speaking -- tend to need to feel that they're useful or otherwise needed; it's part of masculinity. To be surplus to requirement, or unneeded (i.e. underemployed or unemployed) can be very psychologically damaging to a man's sense of well-being. Likewise, what about the support that women tend to receive versus men? Men tend to bottle up and are expected to get on with it, whereas women don't have such a pressure and support is more forthcoming. Furthermore, being underemployed can be really detrimental for a man's relationship chances. For women, it's less so.
It's nonsense.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
