I saw something on TV a while ago specifically about gender pay inequality. I can't remember who they were interviewing, but it was a women who was for measures to close the pay gap, and she said that one of the big factors was that women tend to not negotiate salary as well as men.

Personal anecdotal evidence to support this idea: when I have discussed with a couple of women what I do in a salary negotiation they have generally responded along the lines of "Oh, I couldn't do that".

Not sure if I raised this in an earlier post, but it is interesting to read through many of the posts and see the them generically along the lines of 'its the woman

s fault because [insert some reason here]', or  'Its not an issue because [insert some issue/negative stereotype here]'.   It really kind of re-enforces the point that there may be a gender bias issue.

One of the reasons why some people are not good at things - such as negotiating better deals is often because they have been subjected for much of their lives the message that they cant/are not allowed to/or incapable of doing something. Often when we remove that negative enforcement and replace it with positivity and support we see that same demographic start to excel.

TwoSeven:

 

Not sure if I raised this in an earlier post, but it is interesting to read through many of the posts and see the them generically along the lines of 'its the woman

 

s fault because [insert some reason here]', or  'Its not an issue because [insert some issue/negative stereotype here]'.   It really kind of re-enforces the point that there may be a gender bias issue.

 

One of the reasons why some people are not good at things - such as negotiating better deals is often because they have been subjected for much of their lives the message that they cant/are not allowed to/or incapable of doing something. Often when we remove that negative enforcement and replace it with positivity and support we see that same demographic start to excel.

 

 

 

Good grief! When does people taking responsibility for their own situations come into it? I was taught as a kid not to stand up to authority, and yet, if I choose to, I can, if it's the right thing to do. It's not comfortable, and I am still shy about doing so, but I have chosen to overcome this in my own best interests where it's appropriate. (A situation where I felt I had been wrongly pinged for a traffic matter, meant having a firm and honest talk to the officer who pulled me over. Resulted in him not giving me a ticket.

If I choose to let not being good at something stop me from progressing in my life, why should I make it everyone else's issues? Instead, I choose to overcome or make myself better at those weak areas if I want the benefit.

Paul1977:

 

I saw something on TV a while ago specifically about gender pay inequality. I can't remember who they were interviewing, but it was a women who was for measures to close the pay gap, and she said that one of the big factors was that women tend to not negotiate salary as well as men.

 

Personal anecdotal evidence to support this idea: when I have discussed with a couple of women what I do in a salary negotiation they have generally responded along the lines of "Oh, I couldn't do that".

 

OTOH many jobs have very little room for negotiations. For example government jobs have pay scales and grades etc which more or less remove any need to negotiate at all.

networkn:

 

TwoSeven:

 

Not sure if I raised this in an earlier post, but it is interesting to read through many of the posts and see the them generically along the lines of 'its the woman

 

s fault because [insert some reason here]', or  'Its not an issue because [insert some issue/negative stereotype here]'.   It really kind of re-enforces the point that there may be a gender bias issue.

 

One of the reasons why some people are not good at things - such as negotiating better deals is often because they have been subjected for much of their lives the message that they cant/are not allowed to/or incapable of doing something. Often when we remove that negative enforcement and replace it with positivity and support we see that same demographic start to excel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good grief! When does people taking responsibility for their own situations come into it? I was taught as a kid not to stand up to authority, and yet, if I choose to, I can, if it's the right thing to do. It's not comfortable, and I am still shy about doing so, but I have chosen to overcome this in my own best interests where it's appropriate. (A situation where I felt I had been wrongly pinged for a traffic matter, meant having a firm and honest talk to the officer who pulled me over. Resulted in him not giving me a ticket.

 

If I choose to let not being good at something stop me from progressing in my life, why should I make it everyone else's issues? Instead, I choose to overcome or make myself better at those weak areas if I want the benefit.

 

 

 

I suffered for a long time due to my own inability to rock the boat and demand better treatment, pay, what ever, I am slowly learning that this is not the way to go through life as being passive, working hard and showing what you can do more often than not wont get you a pay rise or the recognition you deserve. You have to say, "look at me, this is what I have done" most of the time. I find this quite hard, as a result for many years while working harder than all the other employees in a company I had been getting paid less, not because of my gender but because of my personality and my own inability to push for what I deserved.

Maybe we need pay equality for people who quietly work hard in what they do as well?

Geektastic: 

 

OTOH many jobs have very little room for negotiations. For example government jobs have pay scales and grades etc which more or less remove any need to negotiate at all.

 

This is exactly what discredits the issue. I've just finished almost 20 years in a public sector organisation and all things being equal everyone got paid according to the pay scale. Same seniority, same qualifications, different gender, all equal the same pay. However, within the organisation females historically gravitated to certain roles which tended to enable greatly accelerated initial promotion relative to overall male counterparts. Then later they would go away and have kids and things would even out again.

TwoSeven: One of the reasons why some people are not good at things - such as negotiating better deals is often because they have been subjected for much of their lives the message that they cant/are not allowed to/or incapable of doing something.

That may well be the case. I was simply making the point that it is not necessarily a simple case of employers having a mindset of "you're a woman, so we will pay you less".

Geektastic:

 

Paul1977:

 

I saw something on TV a while ago specifically about gender pay inequality. I can't remember who they were interviewing, but it was a women who was for measures to close the pay gap, and she said that one of the big factors was that women tend to not negotiate salary as well as men.

 

Personal anecdotal evidence to support this idea: when I have discussed with a couple of women what I do in a salary negotiation they have generally responded along the lines of "Oh, I couldn't do that".

 

 

 OTOH many jobs have very little room for negotiations. For example government jobs have pay scales and grades etc which more or less remove any need to negotiate at all.

 

That's very true. But assume that there was no sexism on the part of the employer - even if 50% of jobs used pay scales and 50% were individually negotiated, you would still see an average pay discrepancy if it is true that (on average) men are better negotiators.

TheMantis:

 

Geektastic: 

 

OTOH many jobs have very little room for negotiations. For example government jobs have pay scales and grades etc which more or less remove any need to negotiate at all.

 

 

This is exactly what discredits the issue. I've just finished almost 20 years in a public sector organisation and all things being equal everyone got paid according to the pay scale. Same seniority, same qualifications, different gender, all equal the same pay. However, within the organisation females historically gravitated to certain roles which tended to enable greatly accelerated initial promotion relative to overall male counterparts. Then later they would go away and have kids and things would even out again.

 

The biggest downside is that we will eventually end up reducing the effectiveness of companies and their management because either officially or by 'Twitter pressure' companies will be expected to have "x" amount of women in various positions and will give them those jobs over better qualified men simply to be able to say that they have the right number of women.

OH has seen this in banks already, citing one example where the new female Director of HR had zero experience working in HR, no HR qualifications whatsoever but because they had managed a few branches and "it will look better" she got the job and was making a fairly poor fist of it as a result of not having much idea about what it should actually entail.

I've no worries about people getting promoted regardless of which bits they were born with - but it has to be on the basis of talent and suitability, not gender. If that means that all the board are men or all the board are women, then fine as long as they got the jobs because they are the best choice not the right gender.

dickytim:

 

networkn:

 

TwoSeven:

 

Not sure if I raised this in an earlier post, but it is interesting to read through many of the posts and see the them generically along the lines of 'its the woman

 

s fault because [insert some reason here]', or  'Its not an issue because [insert some issue/negative stereotype here]'.   It really kind of re-enforces the point that there may be a gender bias issue.

 

One of the reasons why some people are not good at things - such as negotiating better deals is often because they have been subjected for much of their lives the message that they cant/are not allowed to/or incapable of doing something. Often when we remove that negative enforcement and replace it with positivity and support we see that same demographic start to excel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good grief! When does people taking responsibility for their own situations come into it? I was taught as a kid not to stand up to authority, and yet, if I choose to, I can, if it's the right thing to do. It's not comfortable, and I am still shy about doing so, but I have chosen to overcome this in my own best interests where it's appropriate. (A situation where I felt I had been wrongly pinged for a traffic matter, meant having a firm and honest talk to the officer who pulled me over. Resulted in him not giving me a ticket.

 

If I choose to let not being good at something stop me from progressing in my life, why should I make it everyone else's issues? Instead, I choose to overcome or make myself better at those weak areas if I want the benefit.

 

 

 

 

I suffered for a long time due to my own inability to rock the boat and demand better treatment, pay, what ever, I am slowly learning that this is not the way to go through life as being passive, working hard and showing what you can do more often than not wont get you a pay rise or the recognition you deserve. You have to say, "look at me, this is what I have done" most of the time. I find this quite hard, as a result for many years while working harder than all the other employees in a company I had been getting paid less, not because of my gender but because of my personality and my own inability to push for what I deserved.

 

Maybe we need pay equality for people who quietly work hard in what they do as well?

 

So basically self-improvement stops at asking for recognition for what you have done? If you are happy to improve your other skills, then why not these? You have done it, I have done it, lots of others I know do it. I consider it made me a better person overall. 

I don't want legislation interfering in my business any more, thanks. 

Geektastic: OH has seen this in banks already, citing one example where the new female Director of HR had zero experience working in HR, no HR qualifications whatsoever but because they had managed a few branches and "it will look better" she got the job and was making a fairly poor fist of it as a result of not having much idea about what it should actually entail.

gzt:

Geektastic:

 

The biggest downside is that we will eventually end up reducing the effectiveness of companies and their management because either officially or by 'Twitter pressure' companies will be expected to have "x" amount of women in various positions and will give them those jobs over better qualified men simply to be able to say that they have the right number of women.

 

 

 

OH has seen this in banks already, citing one example where the new female Director of HR had zero experience working in HR, no HR qualifications whatsoever but because they had managed a few branches and "it will look better" she got the job and was making a fairly poor fist of it as a result of not having much idea about what it should actually entail.

 

I will generously assume all the above is true. In this case, it is almost certain that a better-qualified woman with more experience missed out on the position.

On what base of facts are you making this claim?

networkn:

gzt:

Geektastic:

The biggest downside is that we will eventually end up reducing the effectiveness of companies and their management because either officially or by 'Twitter pressure' companies will be expected to have "x" amount of women in various positions and will give them those jobs over better qualified men simply to be able to say that they have the right number of women.

 

OH has seen this in banks already, citing one example where the new female Director of HR had zero experience working in HR, no HR qualifications whatsoever but because they had managed a few branches and "it will look better" she got the job and was making a fairly poor fist of it as a result of not having much idea about what it should actually entail.

I will generously assume all the above is true. In this case, it is almost certain that a better-qualified woman with more experience missed out on the position.

 

On what base of facts are you making this claim?