Empowerment leads to wage gap discrimination

[Jon]

A phrase that seems to be everywhere nowadays is "empowerment." Just because someone says it, it doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing. For example, if you have two individuals with equal levels of power, empowering one and not the other means you have comparatively reduced someone else's power. Power does not operate in a vacuum. It only operates in relation to others. So empowering one above another means disempowering one of the parties.

Let me illustrate by taking a controversial topic, the wage gap! If there is no discrimination that significantly favours one gender above another because of their gender, empowering one gender means you are disempowering the other gender. It amounts to discrimination.

But wait I hear you say, there is discrimination favouring men over women in the workplace! Well, let's look at this. Let us say that you have a workplace where a guy starts a beauty business and employs 10 hairdressers, all female (the sexist). I could start by saying why has he not employed 50:50 on gender but let's not go there! Stick to the topic Jon!

He earns £60K per year as the owner. The hairdressers get £20K per year. Now we have a wage gap of £40K. The hairdressers are being discriminated against! Up their wages! Hmmm, but that is the typical wage of a hairdresser. The wage gap is due to the job being done, not their gender. So if you up the wages based on the aggregated gap between mens and womens earnings, you are discriminating against men. And this is happening. Empowerment has led to wage gap discrimination against men. [The point I am making is that you cannot just look at earnings gaps without considering the other factors, like jobs chosen.]

There is another point to add. Maybe the wage gap IS because of their gender, but for completely fair reasons. The evolutionary pressure on men to earn and achieve has not gone away. Merely putting a new framework of perception over what is equitable does not in any way reprogram millions of years of evolved behaviour that is the foundation of who we are as a species. Women have not suddenly evolved high preference for short, weak, unhealthy, poor men with zero resources and no social network. Instead, they still have all the DNA programming that they had for hundreds of thousands of years. Their own feminist ideals are causing an internal struggle that is leading to their reduced happinesses. There is intellectually preferring someone due to an ideology they have adopted, building their arguments around the lexicon spoon fed by the noisiest. Then there is what their own biology is telling them. Call it a cognitive dissonance of sorts.

If you look at the research,, it shows this:
- Women find men more physically attractive if you change job titles. No guesses in which direction. Do you think they fancy the Doc more (no, not you Doc!) or the bog cleaner?
- Women prefer to marry up in status, men have no preference.
- 20% of women will date a guy for his money ALONE!

The pressure on men to earn more leads to longer working hours (proven) and less holidays (proven). This inconvenient truth gets zero mention amongst those who want to up the wages of their cohort. They are not interested in truth. They are interested in a power grab. Perhaps there is an element of Hanlons Razor, where stupidity enters the fray, where nobler motives exist yet bias and fallacy abound.

Men have an evolutionary drive to increase their prospects with the opposite sex, furthering their chances of propagating their DNA in perpetuity. I would further argue that the men are not even deciding to do that. Instead, it is their DNA strands that are governing their behaviour. Yes m'lud, I blame me genes!

Women evolved preferences for certain traits in men, and through natural selection they got what they asked for. Be careful what you wish for. The exception is where Genghis Khan inseminated half the world through force - perks of the job.

[Please note: these do not represent my views, as I type them in my local cafe, getting overexcited at my provocative and naughty statements. Instead, they are coming from my DNA over which I have no influence. Accusations of mysoginy are liable to completely reverse my position, for fear of being left in the wastelands of history. (My DNA just said that last bit, not me!)]

 

[Bee]

This deserves a decent response. I'm conscious that walls of text are not popular, so I'll probably respond in chunks over the next couple of days.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

One point that you made, Jon, is worthy of immediate examination.

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about one thing: You are never paid what you think you are worth. You are ALWAYS paid what the boss thinks your job is worth. Therefore, the comparison between the business owner and the cosmeticians must reflect that the owner has building insurance, business licenses, property tax, rent, and other factors to consider must be balanced against the lesser salaries of the staff. They don't have the same job.

The counterbalance to this occurs when a man runs a department with men and women in it. The men and women are all (let's say for example) programmers with the equivalent of the USA Bachelor's degree in Applied Computing. They all have the same level of experience. And let's say that in this perfect world, they all started with the same hourly salary because the man was fair-minded in his viewpoint. Over time, the salaries will diverge from equality. Some people will do more work than others. And you are paid what the boss thinks your job is worth. Those who do more will get more.

While this will sound sexist, I'm trying to be realistic here. The odds are that the men will get the higher raise than any women who have a family and whose lives are therefore split between family and career. Why? Because they have less time to give. They can't put in the voluntary overtime because they have kids to feed. Oh, their spouses should be able to pick up the slack, but in today's world, the odds are that the women have a better chance of having no spouses.

Let's step back at this point and ask why this salary disparity happens. The single woman who has a family has responsibilities that drain her energy and consume her free time. This was not because the male boss was a misogynistic bastard. It was because the woman's spouse bailed, leaving her holding the (diaper) bag. Can we blame the boss for recognizing that employee William put in extra hours and employee Ruth did not? Can we blame the boss for rewarding William with a higher raise than the one he offers to Ruth? It is not his job to compensate Ruth for having a schmuck of a spouse. Who, then WOULD compensate her?

The REAL solution is to put sharper teeth into spousal support laws. I cannot speak for UK rules, but the USA spousal support rules are byzantine and bizarre at best. Until society cracks down HARD on deadbeat dads, this disparity will continue to occur. Salary disparity originates in societal imbalance against women's rights.

 

[Bee]

What you've described there, Doc, is very much the American work culture where people are expected to be present in the office to demonstrate commitment. The culture is different in the UK and businesses are moving more towards performance driven by output/outcome rather than presence. That does tend to even things up somewhat - so long as the system in place fairly recognises employee input.

But let's ignore the culture differences for now. Whether a woman has a partner or not may not be the most salient issue either. The key issue is that it is still the societal norm for women to look after the children. Now, I know some people will argue that it's basic evolutionary psychology - and to an extent, I agree with that. Women are programmed to nurture their offspring. I'm talking in general here - think normal distribution - and so it makes sense for them to be happier when they are fulfilling that role.

For some women, that's true. But society is changing, evolving. Not all women have or want children. But at the same time, we don't want to be treated like men. We simply want the same opportunities.

I'm not going to post any more on this topic tonight - and would respectfully ask anyone responding, not to address any of the points I've just made - as I am currently part-way through a more detailed answer to Jon's original post and I don't want to be side-tracked or have the thrust of my response diluted.

 

[Bee]

PS - I'm very happy with my salary. Always have been.

 

[Jon]

Overpaid or over-empowered? [Only kidding]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I will honor your request to wait for your fuller response, Bee. But based on what you DID say, you and I don't actually disagree at base. It is a cultural thing as to who manages the kids.

 

[Bee]

This is a multi-post in 4 parts. I’ve broken it up into segments because a wall of text isn’t always the best way to put forward complex arguments. Plus you guys have a short attention span. (I’m kidding. Honest).

Part 1 Terminology

Jon used the term Empowerment in his original post. Now, this can mean different things to different people, so I have opted for the belt and braces approach and looked up what empowerment means in the context of our societal expectations:

“[…]Empowerment is the process in which [humans] elaborate and recreate what it is that they can be, do, and accomplish in a circumstance that they previously were denied. Empowerment can be defined in many ways, however, when talking about women’s empowerment, empowerment means accepting and allowing people (women) who are on the outside of the decision-making process into it. “This puts a strong emphasis on participation in political structures and formal decision-making and, in the economic sphere, on the ability to obtain an income that enables participation in economic decision-making.” […]People are empowered when they are able to access the opportunities available to them without limitations and restrictions.”

(source: Wikipedia – my changes are in square brackets)

This doesn’t seem like it’s a bad thing to me. Does anyone have a different view?

 

[Bee]

Part 2 Empowerment of women = Disempowerment of men

There’s a problem with this argument, which is that one party (men) have the upper hand and it’s some kind of right. Well, who decided that would be the case? Men? Yes. This is the patriarchy women refer to. But I’ll come onto this in more detail in point 4.

There is however, a fundamental problem which needs to be tackled – and here, I’m in agreement with Jordan Peterson. If we (as in society) empower women at the expense of future generations of boys, we simply

a) Create another problem, and
bee) Deepen the existing schism

But first, let’s illustrate why it’s important for women to have equality. Anyone who has read my other posts will know that I believe (again, as does Jordan Peterson) in equality of opportunity. There’s a distinct difference between that and equality. So, when I talk about equality, it’s my shorthand for equality of opportunity.

Let’s assume the world is made up of 50/50 male and female. If men have 60% of the opportunity [power] then automatically, women have less. How is that fair? Why shouldn’t women have the same opportunities? What is the threat to men? Why wouldn’t you want the women you know, some of whom may be family members, to be the best they can possibly be?

One of the first rules of negotiation is to get to a win/win position. Both sides need to be able to walk away from the table feeling as though they’ve got something from the deal. I am leaning towards the view that to be a white male in the current climate must be bewildering and it’s no wonder some men are feeling beleaguered. And that’s problematic because it’s easy to argue that female empowerment comes at the expense of men, so no wonder there is a backlash and heightened defensiveness. But to claim discrimination is disingenuous. The patriarchy ensures that men are not discriminated against when it comes to opportunity.

Jon, I know you will cite minor irritations such as leg room on planes, portion size etc – but that’s all they are, irritations – not systematic discrimination. And I wish you wouldn’t cheapen the argument with trivia. This is an important topic; one which needs both men and women to work together to better society and therefore humanity. And isn’t that what evolutionary psychology is all about? Ensuring longevity of the species?

There’s a link to a video here [content warning, some ripe language]. It’s from a British comedian who is using humour to highlight the problem with the messages our children receive from a very young age. They are conditioned to believe girls are inferior.

And, while I’m having a pop at you, Jon, you said that 20% of women date a guy based on his financial status alone. That means that 80% have other motivations. Focus on the majority – unless it doesn’t support your argument…

 

[Bee]

Part 3 Gender pay gap

There are many reasons why a gender pay gap might exist. But if it does, I think it boils down to 3 reasons:

• Women are traditionally expected to be the ones to raise the children.
• Women don’t have the same opportunities as men (see video posted in part 2 4:47 onwards)
• There is a lack of transparency about how pay is determined

In some families (and given the right opportunities) the woman may have the capability of out-performing her male partner in terms of earning. So does it make sense for her to stay at home, while he works himself to death? She may want to stay at home – that’s fine, it’s her choice – but what if she doesn’t? By giving her the opportunities she deserves, she then has the opportunity to choose how she lives her life.

We are all very coy when it comes to discussing salary. That’s problematic. If those conversations were straightforward, then it would be harder for companies to implement obscure pay & reward criteria.

I’m fortunate as there is a pay scale within local government. Each role fits somewhere on the scale and there are usually 3 or 4 pay points in each band. Pay rises are given annually until you reach the top scale point in each band – and there you stay unless you go for promotion. I can be sure that men and women in the same band as me are not paid significantly more or less for jobs of equal responsibility. This way of reward also means it’s less likely women will be penalised for taking time out to look after children – although long term, they may not get promoted as quickly as men.

 

[Bee]

Part 4 The Patriarchy hurts men too

From birth, men are discouraged from showing emotion, which is seen as a feminine attribute — boys don't cry, right? Without a culturally-approved outlet for their feelings, this stifling of emotion has led generations of men to turn to unhealthy coping mechanisms such as alcohol abuse, which men are more likely to experience than women. Furthermore, research has shown that fear of being seen as "weak" is so deeply ingrained that they drastically overcompensate when they feel threatened. Male overcompensation is typically played for laughs, but in reality, it can have terrible consequences. Men who don't see themselves as masculine are more likely to harass and act aggressively toward women and gay men.

There's no denying that the patriarchy is set up to benefit men. However, gender norms are just as rigid for men as they are for women, and the consequences can be deadly. Some have argued that the high rate of suicide for men could be traced to the cult of masculinity, which causes men to be less likely to seek help for emotional problems. As much as men may benefit from patriarchal societies on the surface, it's clear that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

Although statistics show that men make up anywhere from 10 to 38 percent of sexual assault victims, sexual assault is often seen as something that happens to women, by men. Even when people do admit that male rape occurs, it's often played for laughs: Prison rape jokes, congratulating him on getting "laid," etc. The minimization and outright dismissal of male sexual assault doesn't exactly encourage men to come forward after an incident, and it can seriously impede recovery.

Similarly to sexual assault, domestic violence is assumed to be a female concern. While women do make up the majority of domestic violence victims, domestic abuse can and does happen to men as well. However, the culture of toxic masculinity is so strong that some men may not even realize they're being abused, because they aren't used to violence being discussed in terms of female-on-male.

So, as I have said on another post, feminism is about pulling women up – not pushing men down. The patriarchy affects us all and really, I’m a bit cross that we are still debating this point. The people in this group have fine, inquisitive minds. What is so hard to understand?

 

[Bee]

And finally, there is an assumption that this so-called power grab by women is because men have somehow got everything right and women want a piece of that.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We don't think men have got it right at all - and if you aren't sure why I'm saying that, please read my posts again.

 

[Bee]

I've had a further thought. Steven Pinker, another evolutionary psychologist, had this to say when asked why do we live:

"As a sentient being, you have the potential to flourish. You can refine your faculty of reason itself by learning and debating. You can seek explanations of the natural world through science, and insight into the human condition through the arts and humanities. You can make the most of your capacity for pleasure and satisfaction, which allowed your ancestors to thrive and thereby allowed you to exist. You can appreciate the beauty and richness of the natural and cultural world. As the heir to billions of years of life perpetuating itself, you can perpetuate life in return. You have been endowed with a sense of sympathy - the ability to like, love, respect, help, and show kindness - and you can enjoy the gift of mutual benevolence with friends, family, and colleagues.

And because reason tells you that none of this is particular to you, you have the responsibility to provide to others what you expect for yourself. You can foster the welfare of other sentient beings by enhancing life, health, knowledge, freedom, abundance, safety, beauty, and peace. History shows that when we sympathise with others and apply our ingenuity to improving the human condition, we can make progress in doing so, and you can help to continue that progress."

I posted this quote on the first day I joined The Mind Tavern. Nothing in the quote is particular to any gender; it doesn't apply to only 50% of the population.

"You have the potential to flourish."

So let's see what happens when we are all given the same opportunity to reach our potential

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding I - Empowerment: A more concise way of saying it is this: To empower someone is to take steps to allow the person to do things said person was not previously able to do before. It is expressly immaterial to this definition as to whether the previous inability was physical, mental, educational, political, or motivational.

Regarding II - Empowerment and Disempowerment: While I agree that you ideally, in a world of negotiation, want to come away feeling as though you have a win/win situation, there is a fly in this ointment. The Win/Win language in game theory says that the game is a non-zero sum game. But when we play a real-world game, we don't get to pick the nature of the game. If it is a zero-sum game, then a win/win scenario is not possible. And in the idea of "who gets to make the decisions?" you have a case where if someone is on the high side of the 60/40 split, then to bring it back to a balanced situation, you HAVE to deprive whoever had the 60 percent of the pie by taking away another 10 percent - because as that analogy is couched, it is a zero-sum game. However, there ARE loopholes. See my general comments after my four-point response.

Regarding III - Gender Pay Gap: In private industry, you have a very low probability of improving matters regarding transparency of the method of determining pay. It is not impossible. It just takes an enlightened boss to set up a pay-grade system that allows for sub-ranges within range, and then sticking to the sub-ranges. But in private industry, you will NOT get a manager to give up control over salary. The only non-monetary motivational methods you can use as a manager are things like "Employee of the month" or other such recognition. Since managers aren't allowed to chain the employees to the desk or whip them, all they can do is either give a raise or tell the person "If you worked harder, you WOULD have gotten a raise above the 'Annual Cost of Living' adjustment." Or rarely, offer a spot bonus. Managers will tell you that because no two employees are alike (and they are correct to say that), they need discretionary authority on pay issues.

Regarding IV - Partriarchy Hurts Men: Here, we are definitely in agreement. Stoicism as a way of life SUCKS. I remember the first day that my mother no longer recognized me because her dementia had robbed her of that knowledge. I had experience in stoicism and needed it, because when I accidentally cried, SHE cried. It took me half an hour to calm her down. After that, it took everything I had to not sit down and bawl my eyes out. But I waited until I got into the privacy of my own home, because male stoicism had conditioned me to not show my pain. OK, the situation itself was bad - but to me it was compounded by male-role stoicism.

Here is where part II comes back: You CANNOT make empowerment into a win/win situation when talking only about decision making. But... if you introduce a second game operating simultaneously with the first one, you CAN have a win/win situation. You just win different prizes. Women get to make more decisions. Men get to show that sometimes they hurt (emotionally) like someone has been using their heart to practice the fine art of tenderizing a cut of meat with a spiked mallet. If we can each gain something, whether it be power or the chance to have honest feelings in public, then you CAN have a non-zero sum game.

There are men for whom that patriarchy is all they have known. it is as much a brave new world for modern men as it is for women with new-found power.

 

[Bee]

Doc, your summary in your general comments is exactly what I wanted people to conclude. The win/win isn't a straightforward "Men handover 10% power and women grab it, leaving men perplexed and women jubilant" idea.

The real win/win is exactly what you've said in relation to thinking about the prize differently. By giving women more agency, by allowing them to reach their potential, some of the pressure is taken off men - and women can support and nurture themselves AND men leaving both more fulfilled.

I don't really agree about the wages thing. I think (over time) employers would find it more difficult not to be transparent in pay and reward dealings if we were all braver about discussing such things openly. It is wrong for two people doing the same job to be paid a significantly different amount - but setting a salary band (and sticking to it) for each job role allows the employer flexibility to reward as per performance/experience. And really, if that employer awards pay rises based on who has done the most voluntary overtime, that's a pretty poor metric. One person could be more efficient, work smarter, and not have to put in masses of overtime regularly.

There's also the issue of having to put in voluntary overtime. If it's an essential part of the job, it should be monetarised - either within the salary or, where overtime goes over a cap of say 12 hours a week, the hours should become payable. That would also defeat the "Jimmy works an 80 hour week regularly, but Jane only manages 50, so Jimmy gets the pay-rise" argument and instead allow payrises to be merit based (ie outcome/output).

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding "the wages thing"

For contractors with the federal government, overtime is ALWAYS enumerated precisely in increments of 1/2 hour. There IS no "voluntary overtime" in the sense of "unpaid." To require a federal contractor to "voluntarily" (in the sense of "for free") work overtime is illegal and the manager who causes or allows that to happen could be convicted of a lower-class felony. The contractor's hours are ALWAYS payable. However, despite the size of government, that safeguard doesn't cover most employees.

The problem is whether a business is large enough to fall under National Labor Relations Board overview. And (this number is approximate) over 80% of businesses in the USA are SMALL businesses - too small to fall under NLRB overview. The USA system cannot afford the number of government employees it would take to watchdog Mom and Pop businesses. That means that people who work for small businesses depend on people who they HOPE had enough enlightened management education to play fair. But sometimes it doesn't work like that. The idea of "salary bands within a job title" is great, except that you STILL have the discretion of the manager as to WHEN some person should be bumped to the next band.

That would also defeat the "Jimmy works an 80 hour week regularly, but Jane only manages 50, so Jimmy gets the pay-rise" argument and instead allow pay raises to be merit based (ie outcome/output).

Even if both Jimmie and Jane are paid according to a fair overtime pay schedule, the question actually WILL come down to deciding which of the two provides the best results. If Jane can do the same job in 50 hours that it took Jimmie 80 hours to do, the manager will see that in effect, Jane is more efficient in use of her time because it costs him 30 hours less pay if Jane does it. At least, if he has ANY SENSE AT ALL he would see that and would find some way to reward her. But if Jane gets 5/8 as much done as Jimmy, then gets paid based on the stated overtimes, if they are on the same pay scale, then nothing unfair has happened. The question then becomes intangible: Which person demonstrated better dedication to the job?

But there is nothing that one can do about bosses who allow other factors to come into play. Not the least of which are the religious types who believe that a woman's place is in the home. So that type will STILL give Jimmy the raise in hopes that Jane will get frustrated and leave so that the zealot manager doesn't have to contribute to a situation of enticing a woman to stay away from her home longer. Even if a male boss's religion isn't the primary cause, the "aura" of male vs. female responsibility will affect placement in the salary bands.

{This post has been edited to correct the name of the National Labor Relations Board.}

 

[Bee]

The idea of "salary bands within a job title" is great, except that you STILL have the discretion of the manager as to WHEN some person should be bumped to the next band.

No, you have a transparent pay and reward policy that sets expectations.

The question then becomes intangible: Which person demonstrated better dedication to the job?

So we reward dedication not performance? That's problematic because as mentioned earlier, the parent with care (could be female or male - but more likely to be female) can't put the same hours in as someone who doesn't have to think about childcare. And really, it's in everyone's interests to stop the culture of long hours = reward.

Even if a male boss's religion isn't the primary cause, the "aura" of male vs. female responsibility will affect placement in the salary bands.

Yes. Welcome to the patriarchy. Do you see the problem?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Bee, I've known about the problem for some time, though not related to salary issues. I actually have a pretty strong sense of fairness.

My point is that the owner of a small business who doesn't have NLRB regulations to follow has a different viewpoint. Statistically, that is a "he" so forgive this language, but he would go ballistic if we tried to tell him how to run his small business. And your response about transparent pay and reward policy to set expectations is a quick way for people to LOSE employees because people will invariably think more of themselves than the boss does (well, nearly invariably).

Your comment about rewarding dedication, not performance, was extracted from a context where I said that both people performed work at about the same rate (for the hypothetical situation). If the money in the budget says the boss can only give a nice boost to one person or two tinier boosts to two people, the tiny boost (if tiny enough) is a DEmotivator. At some point, if there must be a tie-breaker, it is possible that it will be on intangibles. The world IS NOT NOW and NEVER WILL BE a cut-and-dried place. There will ALWAYS be a "human" factor for lack of a better term. And there is where we may have a difference of opinion. I don't think you can separate out the intangibles from the rest of the process.

 

[Bee]

So we sit back and say: Never mind, Ladies - behaviour is too hard to change? Now run back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich, there's a good girl.

Not me. Never me.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

At some point, Bee, the gender-based salary issues become blurred with the idea that a small-business entrepreneur cannot afford the legal staff required to track full compliance with regulations that are not enforceable at that level anyway. And too many regulations = dead business. We have seen that 10,000 times in the USA. In a sense, that is WHY small business rules are codified to not apply when the business is small enough. In essence, our Congress decided to let small businesses grow unimpeded until they reached a certain size. It is why children are held blameless in some crimes until they reach a certain age.

Let us be clear: I am not advocating discrimination. I am discussing the practical near-impossibility of implementing stringent transparency rules at the level of the Mom-and-Pop shop or other small startup business when they might have four or five employees total COUNTING the CEO, who is probably also the late-night cleanup staff, mail-room clerk, accountant, and personnel officer. Not to mention finance officer. I believe it is not realistic to expect businesses at that level to implement complete transparency.

By the way, it may even be ILLEGAL to do so, since the information to support that salary transparency is considered to be personal and private. In essence, my salary is none of your business. There was a federal contractor regulation to that effect. My job title was open to the public. It might even appear on my business card (if I have one). My salary band is not public and to publish it would be a violation of the Privacy Act as well as a violation of NLRB policy. It would also mark me as a person who would be a good target for thieves and robbers.

So we sit back and say, past a certain point, there can be no guarantees - for men OR women. Do I want women to be fairly treated? Definitely yes. Do I hate it that some bosses are pigs when it comes to such treatment? ABSOLUTELY YES. But where there is a collision between privacy laws and equal-treatment laws, there will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be a fringe area where both laws cannot coexist. It is a case where the Serenity prayer has to be considered. I trust I don't need to repeat that prayer?