Book recommendation: Invisible Women - a very well sourced book on bias (specifically gender bias)

[Whiskey_Clear]

If women’s hands are such that larger phones are annoying, how come every woman I know has the biggest damn phone she can find. Methinks size matters, at least to them.

My wife’s is bigger than mine too.....phone that is

 

[Jim Prather]

She didn't speak for months?

What did you say, exactly?

Asking for a friend right?

 

[Animal02]

She didn't speak for months?

What did you say, exactly?

Exactly what I posted.......mops brooms vacuums.

She was completely disgusted.

 

[Animal02]

The problem with gender bias is it’s way oversold. These people systematically compared apples to oranges and it just turned people off, sadly much in the same way our nation’s racial dialogue has gone.

Here’s some alternative questions:

A. Why should someone that works 180 days a year get paid the same amount as a person that works 265 days a year?
B. Why should you pay someone in management more if they have less tenure? Does experience not count?
C. One person works in a physically demanding job that over time wears your body down the other does not. Should they be paid the same?
D. One person gets here early every day to cover the people on OT at work at 5am or stays until 6pm with those working late, the other cannot arrive until 8am due to personal reasons and cannot stay late for the same reasons. Do you pay them the same?

I tell you what I face every year & that’s a gender equity analysis before pay raises can be administered. Now the rationale behind it is admirable, pay equity. We do a fantastic job of compensating high performing female employees, because I understand the challenges & develop my Team not biased towards diversity but I assemble them with different philosophies and approaches which leads to gender diversity naturally. I’d stack our record against anyone. But what it does it diminishes the high performers & raises the low performers to squash them all in a box. We’d be a lot better off with a straight across the board raise percentage & the hell with performance.

This gender bias this is a crock. You book may be just fine, but what makes your case difficult @yrp are the decades of baiters that did not present facts but irrationally spewed BS to the extent that people stopped listening & chose up sides. They did not examine the root causes & effectively addressed them. They demanded an outcome not an opportunity. Once again the core of our country’s main issues, an outcome not an opportunity.

Some female could have launched Apple, but the fact is she didn't. It certainly wasn’t because America held her back.

The pay inequity thing is such a crock. If an employer could hire women with the same skill set experience etc for less money.....they would have all women staffs.....because the bottom line would be better.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-l...p-myth-ignores-womens-intentional-job-choices

Devil like always is in the details.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-gender-pay-gap

 

[yrp]

The problem with gender bias is it’s way oversold. These people systematically compared apples to oranges and it just turned people off, sadly much in the same way our nation’s racial dialogue has gone.

Here’s some alternative questions:

A. Why should someone that works 180 days a year get paid the same amount as a person that works 265 days a year?
B. Why should you pay someone in management more if they have less tenure? Does experience not count?
C. One person works in a physically demanding job that over time wears your body down the other does not. Should they be paid the same?
D. One person gets here early every day to cover the people on OT at work at 5am or stays until 6pm with those working late, the other cannot arrive until 8am due to personal reasons and cannot stay late for the same reasons. Do you pay them the same?

I tell you what I face every year & that’s a gender equity analysis before pay raises can be administered. Now the rationale behind it is admirable, pay equity. We do a fantastic job of compensating high performing female employees, because I understand the challenges & develop my Team not biased towards diversity but I assemble them with different philosophies and approaches which leads to gender diversity naturally. I’d stack our record against anyone. But what it does it diminishes the high performers & raises the low performers to squash them all in a box. We’d be a lot better off with a straight across the board raise percentage & the hell with performance.

This gender bias this is a crock. You book may be just fine, but what makes your case difficult @yrp are the decades of baiters that did not present facts but irrationally spewed BS to the extent that people stopped listening & chose up sides. They did not examine the root causes & effectively addressed them. They demanded an outcome not an opportunity. Once again the core of our country’s main issues, an outcome not an opportunity.

Some female could have launched Apple, but the fact is she didn't. It certainly wasn’t because America held her back.

Something this book does is to ask questions about why someone is working 180 vs 265 days and how doing so is holding them back. And then changing policy based on that.

Why can a man come to work early and stay late but a woman cannot? Is it because the man has someone at home (likely a woman) taking care of his family and home work? Does the working woman have to do a lot more unpaid labour than the man does?

That's the missing data that this author is talking about. As a team leader, maybe this kind of data would be interesting to you

 

[yrp]

The pay inequity thing is such a crock. If an employer could hire women with the same skill set experience etc for less money.....they would have all women staffs.....because the bottom line would be better.

Jeez, come up with an original thought at least some times

 

[yrp]

The pay inequity thing is such a crock. If an employer could hire women with the same skill set experience etc for less money.....they would have all women staffs.....because the bottom line would be better.

To give you a more serious answer, the gender pay gap isn't always in that women are getting paid less for doing the exact same job (although sometimes that is true - see Google gender data for even an ultra liberal company's stats) but that women are sometimes pushed into industries or types of jobs where pay is lower.

You too would benefit greatly from reading the perspectives here. One example the author lays out is that most part time workers (of course she provides precise statistics but I don't remember them now) are women vs men. Usually because women have to take the burden of child and elder care and perform a great majority of unpaid labour. Part time jobs on average pay way lower and thus we see a pay gap. Policies like extensive maternity leave could help with this and though this costs more intthe short term, she lays out studies that show it would help the economy in the long term.

Of course, there's plenty of other examples and reasons as to why women choose lower paying jobs. I'd encourage you to go out and do some research on this yourself and report back here

 

[MWBATL]

Of course, there's plenty of other examples and reasons as to why women choose lower paying jobs.

This.

Like so many social issues, the real issues, causes, and possible solutions are imminently more varied and complex than any of our news media or "normal" discussions allow. @yrp may have some different opinions politically, but (s)he has an open mind and has demonstrated a willingness to look at all sides of issues. And that is rare these days. So, I tip my hat to that attitude.

Like most of the respondents to this thread, I am weary of the way this issue has been made partisan and politicized into 30 second sound bites by most of the media and the left, and much of the reaction here is exactly that, which I understand (and frankly, feel the same way). But there is something very complex underneath all of this about childcare, child-rearing and whether we "pay" for that in our societies. I think (and I hope I am not putting words into @yrp mouth) that (s)he is simply asking us to think a bit more deeply about these complex issues. I for one do NOT find gender bias is the simple answer. I believe women prefer and are pre-disposed to their "natural" role as caregivers. But there is some discussion to be had about valuing this role, or paying for it. Just not simplistic, flippant comments (which the left often throws at us).

 

[MWBATL]

Now you guys are focusing on the phone thing instead of the example that the author clearly spells out in the screenshots i posted. Please have a look at that and let me know your thoughts

Are you referring to the Bank of England's criteria and its effects on whether a woman showed up on banknotes?

 

[LibertyTurns]

Something this book does is to ask questions about why someone is working 180 vs 265 days and how doing so is holding them back. And then changing policy based on that.

Why can a man come to work early and stay late but a woman cannot? Is it because the man has someone at home (likely a woman) taking care of his family and home work? Does the working woman have to do a lot more unpaid labour than the man does?

That's the missing data that this author is talking about. As a team leader, maybe this kind of data would be interesting to you

People make choices. Government owes people an opportunity not an outcome.

Not studying in HS is a choice. Choosing anthropology instead of engineering is a choice. Having a child and having that take a bunch of your time up instead of focusing professional career is a choice. Working on weekends when needed instead of being at home is a choice. Choosing to be a teacher instead of a doctor is a choice.

My frame of reference is my personal situation. My father wouldn’t let me use my family background as a crutch. I get people telling me I’m lucky and have been gifted opportunities. In HS I worked every weekend, played sports and was in a band. I could have not gone to GT and endured the pain/struggle of trying to graduate when I could have gone somewhere much easier & almost assuredly graduated with honors with significantly much less effort. Nobody told me to stay up an extra 2-3 hr hours a day getting my quals early in the military so I had a chance of advancing early. I didn’t shirk the harder jobs in my career like others. I went to school at night to get advanced degrees. I outwork the competition & that’s not bragging, it’s fact. I compensate for lack of knowledge by working harder.

Many other people have done the same. Not all are successful but a far larger percentage have followed similar paths that I have than have not. If women want to be “highly successful” if that’s what you want to call it, well they need to be told to do all of the above. Frankly, raising good human beings is “highly successful” in my mind but it’s not fashionable to refer to that occupation as being worthy in the eyes of the Liberals.

I’m not going to read the book you recommended because I won’t invest the effort. It’s an old, tired, worn out source of gender outrage. I may give a copy to my assistant or other females on my staff but she will likely just chuck it away. My assistant is comfortable with her career choices and understands what she’s doing & not doing. She won’t be boo hooing about I’m not making the big bucks because she’s juggling her career and family responsibilities and that’s her choice, not anyone else’s. The other females on my staff are grateful for being given equal opportunity, equal not preferential or gifted equal treatment.

 

[Animal02]

Jeez, come up with an original thought at least some times

So you have no rebuttal.....thanks for proving it is a crock.

 

[Animal02]

To give you a more serious answer, the gender pay gap isn't always in that women are getting paid less for doing the exact same job (although sometimes that is true - see Google gender data for even an ultra liberal company's stats) but that women are sometimes pushed into industries or types of jobs where pay is lower.

You too would benefit greatly from reading the perspectives here. One example the author lays out is that most part time workers (of course she provides precise statistics but I don't remember them now) are women vs men. Usually because women have to take the burden of child and elder care and perform a great majority of unpaid labour. Part time jobs on average way pay and lower thus we see a pay gap. Policies like extensive maternity leave could help with this and though this costs more intthe short term, she lays out studies that show it would help the economy in the long term.

Of course, there's plenty of other examples and reasons as to why women choose lower paying jobs. I'd encourage you to go out and do some research on this yourself and report back here

Funny how your bias shows through... Women HAVE to take a lower paying job.....you disregard that it is choice.
Women are PUSHED into jobs.....once again choice.
You fall for the fallacy of women being forced my men as if it some great conspiracy while ignoring basic economic principals and personal choices.
I too have looked at studies ..ones specially focused on identical jobs, experience etc....and they found either the pay was equal or in some instances....women were pairs more.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

To give you a more serious answer, the gender pay gap isn't always in that women are getting paid less for doing the exact same job (although sometimes that is true - see Google gender data for even an ultra liberal company's stats) but that women are sometimes pushed into industries or types of jobs where pay is lower.

You too would benefit greatly from reading the perspectives here. One example the author lays out is that most part time workers (of course she provides precise statistics but I don't remember them now) are women vs men. Usually because women have to take the burden of child and elder care and perform a great majority of unpaid labour. Part time jobs on average pay way lower and thus we see a pay gap. Policies like extensive maternity leave could help with this and though this costs more intthe short term, she lays out studies that show it would help the economy in the long term.

Of course, there's plenty of other examples and reasons as to why women choose lower paying jobs. I'd encourage you to go out and do some research on this yourself and report back here

Yes....men are pushing women into certain industries at the end of a lash....

Nobody pushes anyone into any industry in America. (Except in the case of sex trafficking) Prove me wrong.

Women CHOOSE their jobs. Just as men do. Why aren’t more women plumbers? These inane beliefs are why I won’t even bother reading any of that nonsense. Thank you for the synopsis which now help me not waste my time on stupid liberal thought.

 

[Animal02]

Funny how your bias shows through... Women HAVE to take a lower paying job.....you disregard that it is choice.
Women are PUSHED into jobs.....once again choice.
You fall for the fallacy of women being forced my men as if it some great conspiracy while ignoring basic economic principals and personal choices.
I too have looked at studies ..ones specially focused on identical jobs, experience etc....and they found either the pay was equal or in some instances....women were pairs more.

PAID more.

 

[Animal02]

This.

Like so many social issues, the real issues, causes, and possible solutions are imminently more varied and complex than any of our news media or "normal" discussions allow. @yrp may have some different opinions politically, but (s)he has an open mind and has demonstrated a willingness to look at all sides of issues. And that is rare these days. So, I tip my hat to that attitude.

Like most of the respondents to this thread, I am weary of the way this issue has been made partisan and politicized into 30 second sound bites by most of the media and the left, and much of the reaction here is exactly that, which I understand (and frankly, feel the same way). But there is something very complex underneath all of this about childcare, child-rearing and whether we "pay" for that in our societies. I think (and I hope I am not putting words into @yrp mouth) that (s)he is simply asking us to think a bit more deeply about these complex issues. I for one do NOT find gender bias is the simple answer. I believe women prefer and are pre-disposed to their "natural" role as caregivers. But there is some discussion to be had about valuing this role, or paying for it. Just not simplistic, flippant comments (which the left often throws at us).

I do not think the author is simply asking questions.
As to you view of "natural care giver/ nurturer". It is logical considering the investment a human female makes in time and energy to give birth.

 

[Technut1990]

If women’s hands are such that larger phones are annoying, how come every woman I know has the biggest damn phone she can find. Methinks size matters, at least to them.

Uh my wife tells me all the time size doesn’t matter ! Un, I mean I’ve heard size doesn’t matter

 

[Animal02]

Uh my wife tells me all the time size doesn’t matter ! Un, I mean I’ve heard size doesn’t matter

A couple of years ago, walked into Costco and there was a couple standing looking at the 80" TVs. I walked up to look at them to, turned to the guy and said " Size does matter". Is wife looked at me is disgust and walked away.

 

[Technut1990]

Here's 3 pages of it that I screenshotted from the Amazon sample that's available for free (so you don't even have to buy the book to read the first chapter).

Maybe this will convey a point

I think what strikes me as I read the excerpts you posted is that we, in society, tend to look for proof of negativity and impact which supports our innate belief. These excerpts make me think of less boisterous/meek men in the positions of the women in these writings.

The fact is that the strong and purpose of mind type people are usually the ones who come out on top. In each case cited in the excerpts a meek man would have been treated with the same dismissals. I think a few factors are at play not the least would be associative research activities. What I Mean is that if there are 15 women working under the auspices of one man, that one man will get credit for everyone’s work, the same would be true if 15 men worked for the same man - he gets the credit.

I’m sure if a student discovers the secret to propulsion which is environmental and cheap, his or hers professor will get the credit.

Another factor is less scientific but no less true, in my opinion. During the development of our societies throughout the world, men have been the gender expected to bear the load, injuries and deaths brought to bear when settling the land, from fighting the elements and building shelter.

Men were the same ones expected to be the hunter gatherer as the women ensured safety and warm for the offspring in the cave. Men fought the bears and wolves and provided the protection to the family. That mindset has carried forward throughout time, not by an attempt to demean or relegate but because strength and physical requirements called for it.

Even in our everyday lives women of today still look at men to fill similar roles. Men are expected to cut the grass, weed eat, trim trees, build the garage, open the mayo jar etc....... these are task that women call on men to do - generally.

It may indeed be true that today women who want to fill the responsibility roles are looked at differently, because it is different. It’s no different then men trying to tell women they will clean the house and take care of the kids, even women hesitantly step aside and let the man do it, as they cross their fingers.

My thesis on this matter is that now, in the modern world, are these expectations changing and it’s not that men or women seek to suppress or depress the others participation but that roles are what they are by necessity and that necessity is just now becoming less of a need.

But in the end, houses are built with 7 or 8 ft doorways because the man building the adjoining room has to get into it, you never build or make something that you yourself can’t use and if these roles were completely reversed today, a doorway would be built high enough to allow a man to walk through.

 

[Technut1990]

Something this book does is to ask questions about why someone is working 180 vs 265 days and how doing so is holding them back. And then changing policy based on that.

Why can a man come to work early and stay late but a woman cannot? Is it because the man has someone at home (likely a woman) taking care of his family and home work? Does the working woman have to do a lot more unpaid labour than the man does?

That's the missing data that this author is talking about. As a team leader, maybe this kind of data would be interesting to you

Now this is just the point. Women are at home because they can’t have it both ways. We live in a world where women’s reproductive health enables a women to make decisions totally without a men’s thoughts. Having a baby is a natural act of reproduction, another natural act is mothering that baby. Housework is an unpaid requirement simply because it’s a requirement of life. Be it man or woman performing the task it’s still unpaid. I would bet your next check that those roles are less uniquely defined in house where there are no kids. In my house my wife works as I do and we both cook supper, do laundry, attend the kids school functions and make the bed. It’s not a task assigned but unpaid jobs that are simply required.