Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



It's fair for dangerous jobs to pay more, and I've never heard a feminist argue otherwise. The feminism I support simply asks for equal opportunity to various industries and for "care work" to be valued appropriately. Taxing people to pay for family leave is not a "concession" from society, it's more like balancing values and one that pays dividends.


You've heard feminists complain that women make something like 77 cents for every dollar men make and that that is unfair. If you hold all else constant and fix the gross pay ratio, men will be doing more dangerous work and not getting paid any extra for it.


Some dangerous jobs pay more. Roofing and logging are incredibly dangerous, mostly male dominated, and still pay garbage. Oh sure you take home a decent amount of money, but most that is because they work a ton of overtime.


I'm a feminist. I've never once asked for or expected equality of outcome. But equality of opportunity? I absolutely want equality of opportunity. And you should, too. Equal opportunity benefits everyone because it allows the market to allocate talent more efficiently.

Professor Iris Bohnet of Harvard wrote a great book called "What Works" that offers some creative solutions to the issue. Here's an interesting article about a small change implemented by orchestras in the 1970's discussed in the book: https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...

Finally, on a personal level, I've found that even the most well-reasoned argument will be ignored when the person making it comes across as an asshole. I'm not saying you're an asshole and I'm certainly not saying that your argument is well-reasoned. But I am saying it's something you should take into account next time you feel compelled to air your opinion.


If you had followed your own advice and left out the snark and implication that I spoke up when I shouldn't have, I'd be far more likely to take that as object-level advice. As it stands, your advice comes across more as trying to police what people are allowed to feel and say. I'm rather sensitive to that sort of behavior, so I'd like to apologize in advance if I'm misreading you here.

As far as the actual object level goes, we're likely far more in agreement than you think. I absolutely want a fair system for everyone, and I'm well aware of the efficiency involved in market processes and price discovery. "Equality of Opportunity" is a lofty goal with relatively few pitfalls (we certainly don't want to punish parents for fair attempts at providing their children with opportunities), but I think we're basically on the same page here. And outright sexism is obviously unacceptable.

I think a big point of divergence between my opinions and mainstream feminist thought here is what we believe is behind differences in group outcomes. In my view, prices as a signal of supply and demand has much more explanatory power. Higher paying jobs are higher paying for a reason - they are more competitive, require longer hours, are more dangerous, more risky, require more intensive training, are less fulfilling, or otherwise less desirable in some way. The wage market is certainly not perfectly efficient, and discrimination does happen, but supply and demand plays a huge role in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, feminism tends more to see differences in group outcomes more as evidence of discrimination and other systematic problems in the system. While these problems aren't 100% solved, in my view they're getting a grossly disproportionate amount of attention.


What if I don't stop believing them?

Your comment is written in such an off putting manner that I wonder if it must be satire.

You've dictated, generalized, and disparaged with every sentence.

Even if I wanted to agree with the presentation is so ugly that I recoil.


Stop believing feminists when they say they want equality of outcome.

Every time someone says this, they follow up with something about a feminist agenda that no woman I've ever talked to actually follows.

what they actually want in practice

Which is what?


> They don't - they completely ignore how men die at work at ten times the rate of women, put in more hours, take more competitive roles, and generally tend to make more sacrifices in pursuit of well-paying jobs and careers.

Instead of becoming frustrated with feminists for not defending mens' rights, why don't we get together and start to demand safer work environments, shorter workdays, less competitive roles, and fewer sacrifices?

We all would benefit from this. It serves the feminist agenda by creating work environments where more women can contribute, and it serves the masculine agenda by creating safer, less demanding work environments for men so that we can spend more time not working. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.


A lot of these folks won't take things easy just because the job is made easier. They're quite driven and focused on optimizing for overall pay. What matters is how dearly they can sell these tradeoffs.

If someone wants to work 60 hour weeks to make the most of things, forcing their job to be 40 hours just makes them pick up a less lucrative side hustle with their free time. Or if their risky job is made too safe, the risk premium disappears and in order to collect it they must retrain if able.


Do you have any evidence of this phenomenon from beginning to end as you describe it? It sounds fascinating.


If you take studies that compare the gross earnings of men and women and control for some of the obvious differences in decision-making, the gender gap tends to disappear. For example, I remember hearing of a study that looked at something like "single, childless people aged 25-34 with a college degree and living in an urban environment." In this narrow demographic slice, women made something like 2% more money than men.

And then if you look at the US census data on occupations by gender, you can easily notice a trend in which jobs have what gender ratios. Roughly speaking it's something like "if the pay and requirements are equivalent, which is a more preferable job" often lands on female dominated fields.

Education, training, and library occupations: 73.1% female Healthcare support occupations: 86.5% Law enforcement workers including supervisors: 19.7% Office and administrative support occupations: 70.8% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: 5.1% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations: 22.8%

The one big outlier to this pattern that I noticed was "Computer, engineering, and science occupations" at 25.7%. This also is a considerable category outlier in terms of skill requirements and competitiveness. "Management occupations" seems like it should also have some of this effect but to a lesser degree, and sits at 40.3%.

Source: American Community Survey, table S2401

Another interesting tidbit is comparing S2401 with S2402 - comparing all workers with only full-time year-round ones. I haven't done a full look, but one thing that jumped out at me is that excluding part-time or part-year workers drops the overall workforce percentage from 47.5% to 43.1%. It might be confounded somewhat by school teachers being considered "part year" and mostly women, though.


I’ve read similar studies about the pay gap that states the gender pay gap gets smaller but most notably doesnt disappear except in extremely small examples like you stated. Could you link me to studies that says they disappear entirely or become meaninglessly small?

“Roughly speaking it's something like "if the pay and requirements are equivalent, which is a more preferable job" often lands on female dominated fields.” Could you explain what you mean by a preferable job? Because I think an office administrative job probably sucks a ton of dick. Education also broadly sucks as a career, especially given the political climate. Healthcare support super duper sucks, but the only healthcare support I know about is those assistants for the elderly which involves a lot of really unpleasant work, or nursing which is also really unpleasant and involves stuff like cleaning up vomit and shit.


Suckier jobs will do things like make you dirty, risk life and limb, be highly stressful and/or competitive, have little to no extrinsic social rewards built in, require extraordinary amounts of training and preparation to enter, or require extended periods of time away from home.

>Office Administration

It's a desk job that gets you home at a consistent time, and requires little specialized training. It's got sucky aspects, sure, but at that level of candidate competitiveness it beats out a lot of other choices.

>Education

It's got a ton of extrinsic social reward in it. People like and respect teachers, and you get to see the result of your work when your students do well.

>nursing

Again, lots of extrinsic social reward. The people you care for get better and appreciate you, and you're part of the mission to help people get better. Keep the unpleasant cleaning and remove the thankfulness and you get janitorial work, which is male dominated.


Education and nursing do indeed require high amounts of training and preparation to enter, and education in particular is extremely competitive. Where are you getting this conjecture? Nursing is also dangerous- one risks horrific infection regularly and is exposed to human body fluids! I’m really thinking this might be a bunch of conjecture based on the ideals of these female-majority jobs, and perhaps not the reality of them. I’m also unsure how it reflects the proof of the original claim, that feminists are broadly not claiming they desire equality but something else, and once they achieve employment parity they will make moves towards inequitable employment.


Not motivated enough to research it right now, but last time I read about this I recall different choices made by men and women account for much of the pay gap, but there is still a residual gap even when you account for men and women performing the same job after everything else is taken into account.


Yes, I’m aware of this evidence. What I’d like is for the parent I was responding to to back up their very strong claims about the goal of feminists and the sorts of long form feminist employment change they’re claiming. I’ve never personally witnessed any study corroborating this phenomenon, but I also am not heavily researched in this area and am therefore welcome to innovative new data.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: