I'm sure some sexism is at work here. However, I'm wondering about some other factors that are probably impossible to gauge but are interesting enough to discuss. The first thing I thought: Are...
I'm sure some sexism is at work here.
However, I'm wondering about some other factors that are probably impossible to gauge but are interesting enough to discuss.
The first thing I thought:
Are women more or less likely to ask for pay raises in general?
In my culture (USA) typical notions of masculinity could lead men to actively seek and fight for pay raises.
I'm not educated enough on current notions of femininity to make an assumption for females.
The fallacy reveals itself. Why would anyone expect two different demographics (who would have entirely different mixtures of job title, experience, education level, & total hours worked) to have...
“The numbers are difficult,” said Sara Wechter, Citigroup’s global head of human resources. “We should obviously be at 100 percent parity, and that’s what we’re striving for.”
The fallacy reveals itself. Why would anyone expect two different demographics (who would have entirely different mixtures of job title, experience, education level, & total hours worked) to have a 100% parity with each other? What would make sense is if the concern were over two people with the same job title, experience, and so forth who didn't make the same amount of money. But it's clear that's not what's being discussed. They're just doing a raw comparison between two groups.
There's no sensible reason why women as a group would have 100% parity with any other group in a demographic pay comparison. Unless that other group magically had the same number of administrative assistants, bankers, accountants, and CEOs as the women's group did and all at the same level of experience and worked the same number of hours. Anything else would skew the numbers for or against one group or the other and cause the gender wage gap to not equal 100%!
Instead of comparing the median pay for men and women, the banks “adjusted’’ the pay gap to account for job title, seniority, education and other factors that affect compensation. All the banks, including Citigroup, reported that after adjustments, there was almost no pay gap between men and women.
Of course this is the case. And that's why outrage over the gender wage gap is completely misguided: the gap is almost entirely a naturally occurring artifact of comparing two different groups with different characteristics. But people assume it measures the disparity in pay between two groups who do the exact same job. That is false.
I think the real question is "What amount of women in job X would be considered perfectly fine?" When someone states there aren't enough of a specific demographic in a specific area, they...
I think the real question is "What amount of women in job X would be considered perfectly fine?" When someone states there aren't enough of a specific demographic in a specific area, they automatically imply there is a number that would satisfy them. What is this number and how did they arrive at it? Is that number realistic? Are there enough people of said demographic studying in that field that could make the number achievable? Did they sit down and go over the logistics of how you could practically meet that goal? If not, how do they intend to fix the problem they've highlighted?
Simplistically, the magic number would be the same percentage as this demographic has in the general population. If Demographic Group ABC forms 30% of the general population, then I would expect...
Simplistically, the magic number would be the same percentage as this demographic has in the general population. If Demographic Group ABC forms 30% of the general population, then I would expect them to form 30% of the employees in a given job (30% of administrative assistants, 30% of accountants, 30% of CEOs). If Demographic Group DEF forms 5% of the general population, then I would expect them to form 5% of the employees in a given job. And so on.
There will obviously never be an exact match between the demographics of a job and the demographics of the general population, but it's still possible to set a target range centred around that percentage, and aim for that range.
And, as you say, if the actual number of people in a job isn't within the expected range, one would track back through the various preceding steps to find the cause. Where, exactly, along the process is this demographic not engaging or dropping out - and, most importantly, why? Then we can address that cause, with the ultimate goal of achieving proportional representation of all demographics across all jobs.
That never happens for anything though. What is the percent of Russian grandma's make up the Didgeridoo players? Much less than their population I would expect. While huge differences can be a...
That never happens for anything though. What is the percent of Russian grandma's make up the Didgeridoo players? Much less than their population I would expect. While huge differences can be a sign of something wrong, I don't think it makes sense to use this as a target rather than thinking about how many of the people who wanted to do something were able to achieve it.
You picked quite an extreme example to make a point. However, here's a counter-point: if a Russian grandma wanted to become a didgeridoo player, could she? The answer is probably yes. There's...
You picked quite an extreme example to make a point. However, here's a counter-point: if a Russian grandma wanted to become a didgeridoo player, could she? The answer is probably yes. There's nothing stopping her picking up a didgeridoo, getting lessons, and starting to play.
The follow-up to that: if a qualified woman wanted to become a CEO, could she? Here in Australia (to take our shared country as an example), is it equally as possible for a woman to become a CEO as a man?
We've officially had gender equality here in Australia for 35 years, since the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1983. A girl who turned 18 that year would be 53 now. A few years ago, "fifty-three was the average age of the top chief executives", a study of the top 50 chief executives showed. So this hypothetical 53-year-old woman should currently be at the top of her career, alongside her male peers. In the past 35 years, she could have done all the same things a man could have: gone to university, started a career, worked her way up the corporate ladder, and reached the top.
So where is she? Where are her sistren? Where are all the female CEOs in Australia? Why do only 7% of Top 200 companies have female CEOs? What's holding them back? Even by your own admission, "huge differences can be a sign of something wrong". Well, I'd say the difference between 50% and 7% counts as huge. Wouldn't you agree? So... what's the something wrong that's stopping women from being CEOs?
Are you going to try to tell me that women don't want to be CEOs? That would be an interesting argument to make. Or is there another explanation for the lack of gender equality in executive positions across Australia?
Someone can want to be an astronaut and never come close to being one even in a perfectly fair world where they tried their hardest. Or that person could've wanted to be a writer more than they...
Are you going to try to tell me that women don't want to be CEOs?
Someone can want to be an astronaut and never come close to being one even in a perfectly fair world where they tried their hardest. Or that person could've wanted to be a writer more than they ever wanted to run a company. Or they'd rather have a job that allowed them more time with friends and family. Saying "Oh, you think women don't want to be CEOs?" is kind of glib when there are any number of reasons someone might not be running a corporation.
That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men. That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men. That...
Someone can want to be an astronaut and never come close to being one even in a perfectly fair world where they tried their hardest.
That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men.
Or that person could've wanted to be a writer more than they ever wanted to run a company.
That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men.
Or they'd rather have a job that allowed them more time with friends and family.
That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men.
You're laboring under this bizarre assumption that because something affects both men and women, that it necessarily should or will affect men and women in equal proportion every time.
You're laboring under this bizarre assumption that because something affects both men and women, that it necessarily should or will affect men and women in equal proportion every time.
I know, right? It's a little-known phenomenon called equal opportunity: men and women should have an equal opportunity to partake in society and to obtain the privileges and benefits thereof. Your...
I know, right? It's a little-known phenomenon called equal opportunity: men and women should have an equal opportunity to partake in society and to obtain the privileges and benefits thereof.
Your scenarios contain inherent sexism:
Women can't be CEOs, even if they try their hardest. Men can, though.
Women don't want to be CEOs, because that's not what women want. Men do, though.
Women prefer to spend time with their friends and family. Men don't, though.
Each one makes assumptions that women can't or won't be CEOs, because they're different to men, and this difference prevents them from being CEOs. That's very sexist.
No. The idea that equal opportunity will necessarily lead to equal outcomes is another fallacy. There's no good reason to believe that. You're not paying attention. The idea that any demographic,...
I know, right? It's a little-known phenomenon called equal opportunity
No. The idea that equal opportunity will necessarily lead to equal outcomes is another fallacy. There's no good reason to believe that.
Your scenarios contain inherent sexism
You're not paying attention. The idea that any demographic, not just women, will turn up in any arbitrary field in equal numbers as any other demographic is highly unlikely unless it were otherwise enforced.
Each one makes assumptions that women can't or won't be CEOs, because they're different to men,
Or because individuals are different from one another? And when you group larger numbers of them together and examine their behaviors en masse, those differences become magnified and outcomes for any particular grouping you want to select for will be distinct for any other grouping you compare it to.
Surely it's not that any random demographic should be in equal numbers as any other random demographic — only demographics that are equal in the population in general should be about equal in an...
Your scenarios contain inherent sexism
You're not paying attention. The idea that any demographic, not just women, will turn up in any arbitrary field in equal numbers as any other demographic is highly unlikely unless it were otherwise enforced.
Surely it's not that any random demographic should be in equal numbers as any other random demographic — only demographics that are equal in the population in general should be about equal in an arbitrary field.
I never said demographics should turn up in equal numbers to other demographics. I said that "Simplistically, the magic number would be the same percentage as this demographic has in the general...
The idea that any demographic, not just women, will turn up in any arbitrary field in equal numbers as any other demographic is highly unlikely unless it were otherwise enforced.
I never said demographics should turn up in equal numbers to other demographics. I said that "Simplistically, the magic number would be the same percentage as this demographic has in the general population. If Demographic Group ABC forms 30% of the general population, then I would expect them to form 30% of the employees in a given job (30% of administrative assistants, 30% of accountants, 30% of CEOs)."
For example, I don't expect there to be equal numbers of gay CEOs as straight CEOs. That would be ridiculous! However, if gay people comprise 5% of the general population, I would expect roughly 5% of CEOs to be gay.
But, because women do comprise about half the general population, I would expect roughly half of CEOs to be female.
And, if this requires enforcement to get around existing sexist stereotypes and practices, then so be it.
I've yet to see any argument which proves that women can not or will not be CEOs in representative proportion to their numbers in the general population.
Or because individuals are different from one another? And when you group larger numbers of them together and examine their behaviors en masse, those differences become magnified and outcomes for any particular grouping you want to select for will be distinct for any other grouping you compare it to.
In other words: "women are different to men, so we shouldn't expect there to be equivalent numbers of female CEOs as male CEOs". I honestly don't see any other way to interpret this.
But this is also ridiculous. You're expecting roughly the same makeup in a much more specific population as in the general population. Different selection pressures apply whereas the only pressure...
For example, I don't expect there to be equal numbers of gay CEOs as straight CEOs. That would be ridiculous! However, if gay people comprise 5% of the general population, I would expect roughly 5% of CEOs to be gay.
But this is also ridiculous. You're expecting roughly the same makeup in a much more specific population as in the general population. Different selection pressures apply whereas the only pressure required to be part of the general population is being born.
In other words: "women are different to men, so we shouldn't expect there to be equivalent numbers of female CEOs as male CEOs". I honestly don't see any other way to interpret this.
Maybe the predominant traits that show up in specific populations turn up in the amounts they do for many varied reasons and not merely sexism.
Maybe, to help me understand this better, you could explain exactly why gay people or women would not show up as CEOs in the same proportions as in the general population - and show me that your...
Maybe, to help me understand this better, you could explain exactly why gay people or women would not show up as CEOs in the same proportions as in the general population - and show me that your reasons aren't based in stereotypes or prejudice or sexism.
Very hard to tell, maybe less want to work in these jobs. Maybe less lack the skills for these kinds of jobs. Maybe less get hired when they do apply. Maybe all of those reasons and more.
Very hard to tell, maybe less want to work in these jobs. Maybe less lack the skills for these kinds of jobs. Maybe less get hired when they do apply. Maybe all of those reasons and more.
Well... yes. And the article even acknowledges that: And Citigroup are working towards changing the cause of the gender pay gap:
There's no sensible reason why women as a group would have 100% parity with any other group in a demographic pay comparison. Unless that other group magically had the same number of administrative assistants, bankers, accountants, and CEOs as the women's group did and all at the same level of experience and worked the same number of hours.
Well... yes. And the article even acknowledges that:
The gap reflects a company that’s mostly male at the highest levels. Women make up more than half of Citigroup’s workforce, but only 37 percent of employees at the assistant VP level through the managing director level. Over the years, banks have lost black executives. In 2017, Citigroup saw a drop in black bankers for the eighth consecutive year. Black workers only make up 1.8 percent of executive and senior manager positions, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
And Citigroup are working towards changing the cause of the gender pay gap:
In an attempt to close the gaps, Citigroup has committed to increasing representation at the assistant VP to managing director levels to at least 40 percent for women and 8 percent for black employees in the U.S. by 2021.
I'm sure some sexism is at work here.
However, I'm wondering about some other factors that are probably impossible to gauge but are interesting enough to discuss.
The first thing I thought:
Are women more or less likely to ask for pay raises in general?
In my culture (USA) typical notions of masculinity could lead men to actively seek and fight for pay raises.
I'm not educated enough on current notions of femininity to make an assumption for females.
Also, a quick google search brought up this article:
Research Stating 'Women Ask For Pay Raises As Much As Men' Is Misleading
And there are others suggesting the opposite:
Women Ask for Raises As Much As Men Do—But Get Them Less Often
That's just sexism but with extra steps. And it's not impossible to gauge, it's just very hard to fix.
The fallacy reveals itself. Why would anyone expect two different demographics (who would have entirely different mixtures of job title, experience, education level, & total hours worked) to have a 100% parity with each other? What would make sense is if the concern were over two people with the same job title, experience, and so forth who didn't make the same amount of money. But it's clear that's not what's being discussed. They're just doing a raw comparison between two groups.
There's no sensible reason why women as a group would have 100% parity with any other group in a demographic pay comparison. Unless that other group magically had the same number of administrative assistants, bankers, accountants, and CEOs as the women's group did and all at the same level of experience and worked the same number of hours. Anything else would skew the numbers for or against one group or the other and cause the gender wage gap to not equal 100%!
Of course this is the case. And that's why outrage over the gender wage gap is completely misguided: the gap is almost entirely a naturally occurring artifact of comparing two different groups with different characteristics. But people assume it measures the disparity in pay between two groups who do the exact same job. That is false.
That just moves the problem. Then why aren't women being hired as administrative assistants, bankers, accountants, and CEOs?
I think the real question is "What amount of women in job X would be considered perfectly fine?" When someone states there aren't enough of a specific demographic in a specific area, they automatically imply there is a number that would satisfy them. What is this number and how did they arrive at it? Is that number realistic? Are there enough people of said demographic studying in that field that could make the number achievable? Did they sit down and go over the logistics of how you could practically meet that goal? If not, how do they intend to fix the problem they've highlighted?
Simplistically, the magic number would be the same percentage as this demographic has in the general population. If Demographic Group ABC forms 30% of the general population, then I would expect them to form 30% of the employees in a given job (30% of administrative assistants, 30% of accountants, 30% of CEOs). If Demographic Group DEF forms 5% of the general population, then I would expect them to form 5% of the employees in a given job. And so on.
There will obviously never be an exact match between the demographics of a job and the demographics of the general population, but it's still possible to set a target range centred around that percentage, and aim for that range.
And, as you say, if the actual number of people in a job isn't within the expected range, one would track back through the various preceding steps to find the cause. Where, exactly, along the process is this demographic not engaging or dropping out - and, most importantly, why? Then we can address that cause, with the ultimate goal of achieving proportional representation of all demographics across all jobs.
That never happens for anything though. What is the percent of Russian grandma's make up the Didgeridoo players? Much less than their population I would expect. While huge differences can be a sign of something wrong, I don't think it makes sense to use this as a target rather than thinking about how many of the people who wanted to do something were able to achieve it.
You picked quite an extreme example to make a point. However, here's a counter-point: if a Russian grandma wanted to become a didgeridoo player, could she? The answer is probably yes. There's nothing stopping her picking up a didgeridoo, getting lessons, and starting to play.
The follow-up to that: if a qualified woman wanted to become a CEO, could she? Here in Australia (to take our shared country as an example), is it equally as possible for a woman to become a CEO as a man?
Here in Australia, "there are just 14 female chief executives running the top 200 listed companies" as at just a few months ago, which "increased the proportion of female CEOs at ASX 200 companies to 7 per cent from 5 per cent over the past year".
We've officially had gender equality here in Australia for 35 years, since the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1983. A girl who turned 18 that year would be 53 now. A few years ago, "fifty-three was the average age of the top chief executives", a study of the top 50 chief executives showed. So this hypothetical 53-year-old woman should currently be at the top of her career, alongside her male peers. In the past 35 years, she could have done all the same things a man could have: gone to university, started a career, worked her way up the corporate ladder, and reached the top.
So where is she? Where are her sistren? Where are all the female CEOs in Australia? Why do only 7% of Top 200 companies have female CEOs? What's holding them back? Even by your own admission, "huge differences can be a sign of something wrong". Well, I'd say the difference between 50% and 7% counts as huge. Wouldn't you agree? So... what's the something wrong that's stopping women from being CEOs?
Are you going to try to tell me that women don't want to be CEOs? That would be an interesting argument to make. Or is there another explanation for the lack of gender equality in executive positions across Australia?
Someone can want to be an astronaut and never come close to being one even in a perfectly fair world where they tried their hardest. Or that person could've wanted to be a writer more than they ever wanted to run a company. Or they'd rather have a job that allowed them more time with friends and family. Saying "Oh, you think women don't want to be CEOs?" is kind of glib when there are any number of reasons someone might not be running a corporation.
That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men.
That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men.
That scenario would apply equally to men and women. It shouldn't affect women more than men.
You're laboring under this bizarre assumption that because something affects both men and women, that it necessarily should or will affect men and women in equal proportion every time.
I know, right? It's a little-known phenomenon called equal opportunity: men and women should have an equal opportunity to partake in society and to obtain the privileges and benefits thereof.
Your scenarios contain inherent sexism:
Women can't be CEOs, even if they try their hardest. Men can, though.
Women don't want to be CEOs, because that's not what women want. Men do, though.
Women prefer to spend time with their friends and family. Men don't, though.
Each one makes assumptions that women can't or won't be CEOs, because they're different to men, and this difference prevents them from being CEOs. That's very sexist.
No. The idea that equal opportunity will necessarily lead to equal outcomes is another fallacy. There's no good reason to believe that.
You're not paying attention. The idea that any demographic, not just women, will turn up in any arbitrary field in equal numbers as any other demographic is highly unlikely unless it were otherwise enforced.
Or because individuals are different from one another? And when you group larger numbers of them together and examine their behaviors en masse, those differences become magnified and outcomes for any particular grouping you want to select for will be distinct for any other grouping you compare it to.
Surely it's not that any random demographic should be in equal numbers as any other random demographic — only demographics that are equal in the population in general should be about equal in an arbitrary field.
I never said demographics should turn up in equal numbers to other demographics. I said that "Simplistically, the magic number would be the same percentage as this demographic has in the general population. If Demographic Group ABC forms 30% of the general population, then I would expect them to form 30% of the employees in a given job (30% of administrative assistants, 30% of accountants, 30% of CEOs)."
For example, I don't expect there to be equal numbers of gay CEOs as straight CEOs. That would be ridiculous! However, if gay people comprise 5% of the general population, I would expect roughly 5% of CEOs to be gay.
But, because women do comprise about half the general population, I would expect roughly half of CEOs to be female.
And, if this requires enforcement to get around existing sexist stereotypes and practices, then so be it.
I've yet to see any argument which proves that women can not or will not be CEOs in representative proportion to their numbers in the general population.
In other words: "women are different to men, so we shouldn't expect there to be equivalent numbers of female CEOs as male CEOs". I honestly don't see any other way to interpret this.
But this is also ridiculous. You're expecting roughly the same makeup in a much more specific population as in the general population. Different selection pressures apply whereas the only pressure required to be part of the general population is being born.
Maybe the predominant traits that show up in specific populations turn up in the amounts they do for many varied reasons and not merely sexism.
Maybe, to help me understand this better, you could explain exactly why gay people or women would not show up as CEOs in the same proportions as in the general population - and show me that your reasons aren't based in stereotypes or prejudice or sexism.
Those are some good points that I don't feel qualified to answer.
It is a rather important shift, tho. Selects an entirely new set of problems ("change employment patterns" instead of "increase women's pays").
Very hard to tell, maybe less want to work in these jobs. Maybe less lack the skills for these kinds of jobs. Maybe less get hired when they do apply. Maybe all of those reasons and more.
Well... yes. And the article even acknowledges that:
And Citigroup are working towards changing the cause of the gender pay gap: