Women and wages

[Tryhard]

It's said that woman are already 49% of gamers worldwide, but nothing is said of what they play. What do they play anyway? Smartphone pastimes? JRPGs with more or less equal representation? Or the same games which are thought to be dominated by males? Do women play CoD? GTA? Racing games? I hardly see any women in forums of those games. I see more women in RPG forums like this and Pokémon forums, Nintendo forums too. To me, it really seems AAA publishers for the most part neglect women. Maybe not the likes of Bethesda (Skyrim) and Bioware (Mass Effect), though. I hardly see women as modders, and no prominent female devs. This is a problem IMO.

I believe that that number has now grown to actually being the majority at ~53% of women playing games now. And yes, you could say that they would mostly stick to mobile or "casual" games if we have to call them that. But is there any guarantee that the 47% or so of men play all the kinds of AAA games?

At least for the part of female developers (and yes, there are prominent female developers), it generally is seen as a difference in interest. Here's a video from Christina Sommer's explaining it; I was unaware of the huge numbers involved previously.

EDIT: Also, if we need to get more females into computer science/game development, for example, do we need to get more females into being sewage workers (98% are male), truck drivers, construction workers or such? Do we need more males being nurses or involved in art or psychology? While it would be nice to have a 50/50 split in everything that's not exactly how it works.

Women earn less on average

This does not seem to be really true, at least in the US, as it has been checked by economists for years, as an aside. Link, once again Sommers.

Edit: That said, I haven't really looked wholly at the evidence in this case.

Yes, I agree that there are problems in gaming but I don't really see it as bad as you.

getting into bad areas here guys

Edited November 19, 2014 by Tryhard

[Axie]

Christina Sommers is definitely a bad area since she is irredeemably terrible. She has a weird mission of being the feminist that is actually anti-feminism and gets a lot of things wrong in the process (for example, the US does still have a gender gap in earnings and part of it can't be explained by issues not related to gender).

Edited November 19, 2014 by Axie

[Tryhard]

Christina Sommers is definitely a bad area since she is irredeemably terrible. She has a weird mission of being the feminist that is actually anti-feminism and gets a lot of things wrong in the process (for example, the US does still have a gender gap in earnings and part of it can't be explained by issues not related to gender).

"Irredeemably terrible" is quite something to say, but, I feel as though the first video at least was sharing knowledge from a pretty reliable source, and I don't really see a problem with saying that most see it as a lack of interest. As for the second, I have no idea how the counter-arguments go, I haven't seen any proof against it, but it does tackle the often cited figure of "77 cents per every dollar". You know, it still seems like it exists to a degree, the contention is how neglible it is or isn't, or at the very least, how it is exaggerated or not. I've also heard that it is still a problem because men tend to get higher paying jobs then women, and in this case, I think that would be valid.

Mind, I don't think she's the only one saying so.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

How am I supposed to know what is correct when most of the sentiments I see on the wage gap is 'it exists', and an appeal to emotions?

It's something that I would honestly like to look into but it's something mired in misinformation and repetition of what people say is true (kinda like GamerGate wow). But whatever.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Tryhard

[Irysa]

Christina Sommers is definitely a bad area since she is irredeemably terrible. She has a weird mission of being the feminist that is actually anti-feminism and gets a lot of things wrong in the process (for example, the US does still have a gender gap in earnings and part of it can't be explained by issues not related to gender).

Attack the argument, not the person making it. Regardless of what you think of Sommers, a point I find difficult to contest is that if women were really as wage discriminated against as the supposed gap says, employers would simply be employing far more women for jobs so they could pay them less at it, and thus make more of a profit. Feminism is a broad movement and just because she has qualms with sensationalist taglines within contemporary feminism doesn't mean she's "anti-feminist". She was pretty pro on the whole HeforShe thing (which I thought little of personally, so there you go).

[dondon151]

Attack the argument, not the person making it. Regardless of what you think of Sommers, a point I find difficult to contest is that if women were really as wage discriminated against as the supposed gap says, employers would simply be employing far more women for jobs so they could pay them less at it, and thus make more of a profit.

i don't like this reasoning because it doesn't take into account differences in perceived quality. it's not unthinkable to imagine an employer who doesn't like employing women and who would play less to women he did employ. if he did pay women less, why doesn't he hire more of them? maybe he thinks they do poorer work, or maybe he just doesn't like them.

these arguments are overly simple in general because they assume perfectly rational people when we know that no one behaves rationally.

Edited November 19, 2014 by dondon151

[Irysa]

It is simple, and true, it's not unthinkable to imagine and employer like that, but when the proportion of the gap is proposed to be as significant as nearly a quarter of a dollar or so across the entire board, you're already simplifying the argument anyway. The equally simple response you give also means that the same business who outsource work for cheap labour elsewhere are willingly ignoring a supposedly cheap labour source right under their noses; which whilst not unbelievable on smaller levels, simply doesn't make sense when we consider the sheer size of the US economy. To get to the proposed figure with that basis, you'd have to assume an overwhelming majority of employers are completely ignorant bigots.

I'll admit, debunking a simple argument with an equally simple response is not really entirely appropriate though, and I apologise for that. But at the least it highlights how the issue is markedly more complex than the tagline wants to make it seem. The biggest reason for the statistic is likely the disproportionate amount of women and men in the highest paying jobs, and CEO/Banker bonuses. I'm not one to handwave that as not being a problem, but "women earn only 70 something percent as much as their male counterparts for the exact same work" is a grossly misleading statement by itself, that reeks of attempting to sideline the gross inequality of wages from the top and bottom of the spectrums anyway.

[dondon151]

i think the actual figure is like 93 cents on the dollar?

[Rapier]

A question about these infographs that show a difference in earnings between men and women: Do they take into account factors such as productivity, working hours, salary comparissons between same jobs, how long the employee has been in the same workplace and how experienced the employee is in the area? Because otherwise, the comparisson is not just at all. For example, I can compare a woman who is new to her area to a man who has been working for a longer period, say the woman earns less and claim prejudice. Or ignore that men are overall on better paid jobs and that women are overall on worse paid jobs and claim prejudice. Irysa made a more concise point on his latest post, with which I agree.

I've yet to see evidence that shows a salary comparisson between male and female employees that take the aforementioned factors in mind, and still claim that there is a big gap in payment.

[Snowy_One]

My question is 'if a woman is knowingly getting a lower paycheck than a man, assuming she doesn't have a child to support and/or can't afford the time, why hasn't she gone out looking for another job?'

[Skynstein]

My question is 'if a woman is knowingly getting a lower paycheck than a man, assuming she doesn't have a child to support and/or can't afford the time, why hasn't she gone out looking for another job?'

Because women earning less is a general trend in most countries.

Black people earn less for the same job, too. At least in Brazil.

[Snowy_One]

Because women earning less is a general trend in most countries.

Black people earn less for the same job, too. At least in Brazil.

But isn't that sort of the whole point of a free market? If a woman feels like the pay is hurtful shouldn't she be seeking out other places? Eventually she's got to find some man willing to pay her fairly, some woman running her own company, or something else.

[Skynstein]

But isn't that sort of the whole point of a free market? If a woman feels like the pay is hurtful shouldn't she be seeking out other places? Eventually she's got to find some man willing to pay her fairly, some woman running her own company, or something else.

The point of capitalist labour rules (as much of a fairy tale as they are) isn't to pay whatever you want, it's to pay whatever the person's work is worth. Paying less to women and black people for doing the same tasks a white man would with the same skill isn't "free market", it's sexism and racism.

That's not to mention that women earning less is a general trend across all occupations, so looking for a job elsewhere just because they're being paid less may not be as simple as you think, especially in areas where women are viewed as inferior (like engineering, IT, etc.). Besides, suggesting a woman stay unemployed until she finds a benevolent man who will pay her what she deserves (and this man doesn't deserve any reward for doing so, as he's simply doing what he's supposed to) is impractical when people have bills to pay.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Cerberus87

[eclipse]

My question is 'if a woman is knowingly getting a lower paycheck than a man, assuming she doesn't have a child to support and/or can't afford the time, why hasn't she gone out looking for another job?'

Because getting employment is a pain in the ass. ;/

Anyway, if you guys want a discussion about job equity, you're free to start up a new thread.

[dondon151]

But isn't that sort of the whole point of a free market? If a woman feels like the pay is hurtful shouldn't she be seeking out other places? Eventually she's got to find some man willing to pay her fairly, some woman running her own company, or something else.

are you aware of the opportunity cost of looking for a job

[Rapier]

it's not like she can't be working and looking for another job at the same time (of course I don't mean looking for work during her work hours, so there's no use being pedantic here, donny)

The point of capitalist labour rules (as much of a fairy tale as they are) isn't to pay whatever you want, it's to pay whatever the person's work is worth. Paying less to women and black people for doing the same tasks a white man would with the same skill isn't "free market", it's sexism and racism.

My challenge is still a thing. Try to refute this, guys.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Rapier

[dondon151]

it's not like she can't be working and looking for another job at the same time (of course I don't mean looking for work during her work hours, so there's no use being pedantic here, donny)

i don't need to be pedantic to simply ask once more, are you aware of the opportunity cost of looking for a job?

my username is dondon151; dondon for short. please don't call me donny.

Edited November 21, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

If the opportunity cost of looking for a job is higher than the cost of staying at her current place of employment then doesn't that defeat your point

For that matter, is the opportunity cost really even relevant in the first place? What are you weighing the cost of searching for a job against? I was job searching while working and going to school full time, the cost is essentially not being able to watch Netflix for awhile.

[dondon151]

If the opportunity cost of looking for a job is higher than the cost of staying at her current place of employment then doesn't that defeat your point

For that matter, is the opportunity cost really even relevant in the first place? What are you weighing the cost of searching for a job against? I was job searching while working and going to school full time, the cost is essentially not being able to watch Netflix for awhile.

no, that is in fact my point. snowy's statements tacitly assume that if a woman is being underpaid, then she should easily be able to find a better employer. but we know that's not true, because not only is finding a desirable job not easy, but people are generally able to put up with mild injustices. a woman might not care that she's paid 7% less than a man if she's not in financial duress.

i'm not sure how your personal experience is relevant. you're college-educated, presumably white, and presumably male. finding a new job is not easy for most people, and it could very well be that many people think they're okay with working a sub-par job. beggars can't be choosers.

Edited November 21, 2014 by dondon151

[Rehab]

It's like a "who's going to make the topic" Mexican standoff

it's not like she can't be working and looking for another job at the same time (of course I don't mean looking for work during her work hours, so there's no use being pedantic here, donny)

My challenge is still a thing. Try to refute this, guys.

*shrug* ?

[Esau of Isaac]

no, that is in fact my point. snowy's statements tacitly assume that if a woman is being underpaid, then she should easily be able to find a better employer. but we know that's not true, because not only is finding a desirable job not easy, but people are generally able to put up with mild injustices. a woman might not care that she's paid 7% less than a man if she's not in financial duress.

i'm not sure how your personal experience is relevant. you're college-educated, presumably white, and presumably male. finding a new job is not easy for most people, and it could very well be that many people think they're okay with working a sub-par job. beggars can't be choosers.

Looking for a job has nothing to do with being college-educated. It is as easy as spending time filling out applications. And being okay with working a sub-par job is no one else's problem other than the person staying at their job. It's their job (heh) to look for a position that they feel is relevant. If they lack qualifications or experience in a field the onus is on them to gain them. No one is owed a job anywhere.

That said, I do agree that it's silly to argue someone being discriminated against, which is itself quite separate from simple feelings of being undervalued. I think the perception of gender discrimination is exaggerated in today's mainstream, but in cases where it is demonstrably evident the employee should bring notice of this.

[Dagon]

Looking for a job has nothing to do with being college-educated. It is as easy as spending time filling out applications. And being okay with working a sub-par job is no one else's problem other than the person staying at their job. It's their job (heh) to look for a position that they feel is relevant. If they lack qualifications or experience in a field the onus is on them to gain them. No one is owed a job anywhere.

That said, I do agree that it's silly to argue someone being discriminated against, which is itself quite separate from simple feelings of being undervalued. I think the perception of gender discrimination is exaggerated in today's mainstream, but in cases where it is demonstrably evident the employee should bring notice of this.

I do think the gender gap is exaggerated in America. Yes women could get more equality but as it is the gap is closing. In other countries that's a whole different story.

Oh and another thing about different genders doing the same task: depends on where you're getting those stats and if they actually have the same job rather than a job in the same field. In some cases men might even have an advantage with jobs that have physical labor (for obvious reasons). And men are born with the advantage, it's not something written in the law. Biologically speaking that's just how it is. Doesn't mean a women can't make a living out of physical labor, it just means they won't be as good as a man in a job (that isn't always the case but for the most part it is) that requires strength/endurance and they will be paid less because of it. Unfair? Maybe. But you can't just give people extra money for a skill they lack in, that's why people look for other jobs.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Dagon

[dondon151]

Looking for a job has nothing to do with being college-educated. It is as easy as spending time filling out applications.

are you implying that how likely one is to get a job has zero bearing on how likely one is to look for a job?

Edited November 21, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

I am saying the opportunity cost of looking for a job is very low. I don't know where you're coming from now talking about likelihood of searching for one. We're to presume the person in question is already dissatisfied with the pay they are making. Searching for open positions is pretty simple, it's never been any easier in history. If the opportunity cost of it is so high that they don't even bother looking for jobs then obviously they're pretty contented with their position, aren't they?

[dondon151]

I am saying the opportunity cost of looking for a job is very low. I don't know where you're coming from now talking about likelihood of searching for one. We're to presume the person in question is already dissatisfied with the pay they are making. Searching for open positions is pretty simple, it's never been any easier in history. If the opportunity cost of it is so high that they don't even bother looking for jobs then obviously they're pretty contented with their position, aren't they?

i think you misunderstood what i said in my previous post:

but we know that's not true, because not only is finding a desirable job not easy, but people are generally able to put up with mild injustices. a woman might not care that she's paid 7% less than a man if she's not in financial duress.

i'm willing to wager that in many cases, unless you told a woman that she was making less money than a man doing the same job, she wouldn't complain about her income. that doesn't mean that the inequity should stand.

if searching for a job were really as easy as you claim it to be, then why is it that so many people who lost their jobs in the economic recession are no longer counted in the unemployment figures because they gave up looking for a new job? and why is it that the underemployment figures for fresh college graduates has increased from around 10% in 2008 to around 17% in 2014? i will concede that the action of looking for a job is easy, but that's a solid bit of pedantry if you assume that i'm not talking about getting a job.

Edited November 21, 2014 by dondon151

[Rapier]

if searching for a job were really as easy as you claim it to be, then why is it that so many people who lost their jobs in the economic recession are no longer counted in the unemployment figures because they gave up looking for a new job? and why is it that the underemployment figures for fresh college graduates has increased from around 10% in 2008 to around 17% in 2014? i will concede that the action of looking for a job is easy, but that's a solid bit of pedantry if you assume that i'm not talking about getting a job.

The keyword is 'economic recession'. To use this as an argument to make a point about how hard it is to get a job is like using an economic boom to make an argument about how easy it is to get a job. Both are temporary and very specific situations which can't be used as a general rule. Sure, while the recession/boom is taking place, it is harder/easier to get a job... but what if we consider how hard/easy it is to get a job under normal conditions? Would he still be wrong?

It seems that fixing the economy is one of the best things we can do about salary inequality. Under a stable economy, women will be able to find better jobs and face against discrimination, so they will not have to tolerate abuse. This is better than hoping that a law enactment act will somehow fix inequality problems (hint: it hasn't ever fixed anything, and it won't).

people are generally able to put up with mild injustices. a woman might not care that she's paid 7% less than a man if she's not in financial duress.

Why you of all people must be concerned about someone else's salary while they show satisfaction about it? If they are willing to accept the trade and satisfied with their part, you have no right to intervene in voluntary negotiations, even if you find it injust and abusive (because 'value' is a subjective concept).

Edited November 21, 2014 by Rapier