Feminine jobs are paid less. That's what the statistics show. I hate how the media presents it. From a marxist perspective, the correct framing is that feminine jobs are paid less, which is directly supported by the data. It seems like bourgeois media are intentionally warping the framing to make it sound like women are paid less for the exact same title and position as men, which isn't what the data shows. They are equivalent in education level, but not title or role or job. Garbage truck drivers and hair dressers are paid differently because society does not value feminine jobs as much as masculine jobs (and also capitalism has more leverage and takes more advantage of feminine labor).
The synthesis of the bourgeois media framing is that recruiters and employers are being too ruthless when they are hiring women, or women are not negotiating hard enough on the job hunt, when the actual problem is that women without a degree make 75% of what a man without a degree makes, and it's the same for higher education levels. Engineers and other stem jobs make more than the careers that are typically favored by feminine people.
It's a great marxist teaching moment I think, because the real problem is labor class and capitalist oppression, as usual.
Well... no. Employers do literally just pay women less (and queer people, and black people, and ...). They just also undervalue feminine jobs too.
Do not fail to realize that bosses are, in fact, racist and sexist. This phenomenon can be empirically observed in the different hiring rates for black vs white men of the same criminal record. The black men are perceived as being more criminal in comparison to white men who have committed the exact same amount of crimes. This is not because black men don't negotiate well enough. It is because bosses view black men as inherently less trustworthy regardless of said employee's rhetoric or actual production value. Bosses view things similarly when it comes to women as employees, but they view them as less productive instead of less trustworthy in that case. The end result is lower pay due to bigotry in both cases.
When I jumped into the data it was the data behind the 75% of every one dollar study from about 8 years ago, which was a broad look across all employment and not specific to stem. I think it's fair to say maybe the data I'm referencing is outdated now and I shouldn't have assumed it stayed the same or was the same in every labor sector.
I know there are still differences in the same exact title/role/job that favor men, but at the time of the data in the 75% of every dollar study the framing was based on data that compared garbage truck drivers with hair stylists and that seemed very dishonest to me, especially when there's such a great marxist framing that could have been used instead.
well it's not really "dishonest" unless they were explicitly trying to argue the jobs themselves don't matter. the conclusion that women are paid less on average than men is still a correct conclusion regardless of if that's because they're expected to have/are forced into jobs which are then paid less, or if they're just directly paid less for the same jobs. I am willing to bet it's both of those in different industries, also.
That's true, women are paid less on average than men. I was just surprised that they compared such completely different jobs in order to get to that 75% for every dollar figure in that study. I had assumed they were the same jobs from the way the results of the data was framed. I thought it was interesting that the data was framed in that way, and thought maybe they did that because they know capitalism will never be able to resolve the difference in pay between a hair stylist and a garbage man so why shine a light on something that goes against their class interests.
hmmm that's fair. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just done as a kind of naive attempt at urging people to feminism, but it's possible it was a cynically done thing to