First, your example is absurd because no other degree has a more negative connotation amongst men then gender studies. If instead you switched her degree to something more neutral, yes actually. Many men would be turned off by a woman with a degree in engineering.
Does this guy have ANY credentials? There's no way his IQ even breaks the average.
It's the AAUW paper,graduating the pay gap. It corrects for major choice, hours worked, time in field and a host of other factors and comes down to the 8% figure. It's a pretty stellar report.
It's 4-8% when things like education, experience, specific industry and specialization (Not just crappy BLS fields, which mosh together paralegals and corporate lawyers, for example.), hours per week/year and a host of other factors. It comes out to a difference that floats between 4 and 8.
You're not listening. If you just go collectively, it's that 77% figure that gets tossed out all the time by lefties and feminists.
No, that's not it. That's only 1 year after graduation. This was way more exhaustive, and specifically accounted for things that happen over the course of a career, like the fact that women are more risk-averse and therefore less likely to leave one company to take only a slightly higher paying job at another company that had more room for growth.
Fair point about gender studies being an extreme example, but I'm not convinced with regards to the second point. Like, what even is a "neutral" degree?
The female character that ignores cultural expectations, eschews traditional gender roles and stereotypes, and breaks through a "glass ceiling" has been a staple trope in all forms of media for my entire life, and I live amongst what is probably the most patriarchal culture in this entire country.
Yeah, I know the one you're talking about, it was lambasted for being a conservative piece of propaganda. I want to say it began with a C, I'll have to think about it. I went from that one, to the AAUW because it has less variables--the one year post graduation eliminates a bunch of the variables that come with full careers.
They don't, they list the 6.6% as unexplained. There were no other correlations they could find. In other studies, I've seen it explained really as just potential capital loss (You're most likely going to lose a woman due to children at some point, even if she's dedicated, so some jobs might pass them over--ect, but that's conjecture, not a solid study inference). Another popular theory is, as Mist said, women are naturally more risk averse; but this study is limited to first year, so I'm not sure how much of an effect that would have (Since risk often comes up in swapping employment during your career. It could still play a role; as first job selection can have a range of risk factors, too.)
To me, that's a pretty solid reason that they deserve the 8% gap. If you aren't willing to take risks in your career, you shouldn't expect the same pay.
Did not say 'naturally.' Economists have done this study. Women are less risk averse in more equal societies, and in the handful of matriarchal tribes studied, the women are actually greater risk takers than the men when tested with economic game theory.
Did not say 'naturally.' Economists have done this study. Women are less risk averse in more equal societies, and in the handful of matriarchal tribes studied, the women are actually greater risk takers than the men when tested with economic game theory.
I can't comment about risk aversion for women, I didn't read the full study on it, I'll take your word for it. Was it from the London School of Economics? I think I remember the C from CEP (Center for Economic Performance.) I've only skimmed a review of the study, I wanted to go back and read it but never had time. I'm not sure if it was an exhaustive study of fields; but it was focused on risk taking and competition aspects of the pay gap.
