169
Tech bros' attitude to female colleagues stuck in dark ages
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
169 points (83.4% liked)
Technology
55692 readers
2525 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That would be asking for trouble, duh.
It's illegal in my country to specify gender too, so all ads say "(m/f)", do you really think there won't be a hiring bias when hiring for a role where one gender is predominant?
Of course there sometimes is. Where did I say otherwise? What does that have to do with anything I said?
All I said was that by far far and away the biggest cause of the lifetime earnings gap between men and women being the way that it is is because women work fewer hours in their lives, mainly due to pregnancy and childcare.
In the UK at least, younger women actually earn more than their male counterparts due to higher university attendance, typically better grades, and ending up in better jobs.
It's when they reach an age where it's typical to take time off to have kids when they fall behind.
Put simply, work fewer hours = get fewer monies.
If governments want to close the gap, and I think they should, they need to make childcare more accessible. It helps both men and women, but moreso women, because they're the ones who take time off for pregnancy, and they're typically the ones who take more time off for looking after children after that.
It feels a but ridiculous that you are using "less work hours due to pregnancy and childcare" as your primary explanation for why women make less over multi-decades long career.
Women go on pregnancy leave for months. How can this explain less pay for years of working?
Women can be gone for just months (in most countries it's 1-2 years actually), but even beyond that many don't return to work or only return part time. Looking after children is hard and time consuming.
The Office for National Statistics (UK) found that 15% of men and 42% of women work part time (defined as fewer than 30 hours per week), data as of 2018.
Women demonstrably work fewer hours in their lives than men. We have extensive data on this.
I'm of the opinion that if we want to reverse that, more aid needs to be given to new parents especially in the form of free or discounted childcare - because pregnancy and looking after children is the single largest reason for women staying out of work/reducing their hours.
I genuinely don't see what's controversial in what I'm saying? The data backs me up.
I'm sure even anecdotally you know more women taking a greater duration of maternity leave than their partners take paternity leave, I'm sure anecdotally you know of more full-time single mothers than single fathers, and anecdotally you know more mothers who went part time after having kids than fathers.