This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
removed entire section: "Effect of socialization on gender pay-gaps"
I removed the entire section; you can read it in article history. The section cited one statistic saying that differences in career paths between men and women account for 53% of the wage gap, but then it places that factoid within the frame of an unverified POV assertion (even in the heading of the section) that these career differences are due to the disempowering effects of society upon women. That ignores the possibility that women consciously trade lower-paying jobs for ones with a better working environment, etc. This section can be completely rewritten with a POV-neutral heading, and far better statistics, but in its current state it neither makes the case nor remains neutral. • Arch♦Reader 13:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it cited two peer-reviewed academic papers and tied them together - and I'm not seeing what's POV about the heading. Could you explain that bit? You removed a chunk of the article actually far better referenced than a large portion of the rest. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It cites one little stat that says that women receive different pay regardless of similar qualifications, and another which states that the wage gap is related to job selection. Well OK, those can be kept, but they are apples and oranges (qualifications vs. job selection), and belong in different sections. Even more, the WHOLE SECTION is POV because it explicitly attributes job choices to nebulous, disempowering forces of society. Bullfeathers. Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force. The higher-paying jobs that males predominantly take are *unpleasant* and often even *dangerous* ones (e.g., coal miner). Women self-select careers that have better working conditions but lower pay. The heading is POV because it very explicitly attributes job selection to those mysterious disempowering social forces. The section quotes two disparate stats that belong in different sections, then assumes an editorial voice and shoves a POV-laden narrative that "explains" those two stats down the reader's throat, when other explanations are far more reasonable. The entire section is explicitly situated within this narrative. @Ironholds:, please put on your thinking cap. The two different stats belong in different sections of any reasonable organization scheme, and the "social forces" narrative belongs in some section that explicitly labels it as speculation rather than fact. When the heading of the section and the text below it explicitly select one speculative narrative over others, Wikipedia is takng on an editorial voice. Do you want Wikipedia to assume an editorial voice? If so, please get a job with a partisan online source. If not, please self-revert and rewrite the whole darn article. , • Arch♦Reader 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Even more, the WHOLE SECTION is POV because it explicitly attributes job choices to nebulous, disempowering forces of society. Bullfeathers. Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force. The higher-paying jobs that males predominantly take are *unpleasant* and often even *dangerous* ones (e.g., coal miner). Women self-select careers that have better working conditions but lower pay. you've provided absolutely no citations for this and it appears to be your personal opinion - your personal opinion, that you're using to justify editorial choices and the removal of content actually referenced to reliable, third-party sources, of which neither of us are. You seem to be desiring an editorial voice for Wikipedia yourself, simply one that disagrees with the content of the article.
If you can give examples of how you would like the article rearranged, based on reliable sources, I am happy to add to them and include them (with consensus!) in the article once everyone here finds them satisfying. But if you wish to rearrange the article based on your own anecdotal evidence of the causes of the gender pay gap and the lived experiences of men and women, well, that's, as you would say, bullfeathers. Ironholds (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You are favoring one anecdotal account over another. That is POV in its purest form. I want to rewrite the entire article, top to bottom, to reflect what is actually stated in statistically valid sources. I want to explicitly state that opinions are opinions, wherever opinions are given. And yes, that stuff about society forcing or pressuring (or whatever verb you want to use) women to choose certain fields is 100% unadulterated worldview-based narrative. Also known as Opinion.. • Arch♦Reader 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are peer-reviewed journal articles anecdotal accounts to you? If you mean you don't recognise qualitative research as valid research, well, that's your problem to take up with...pretty much every academic field. Ironholds (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ironholds:, please listen. Please think. That section contains three and only three elements. Please think about what the content actually is. So we have: 1) a cite that says that women get differing pay even when they have the same qualifications. That is a complicated topic that deserves an entire dedicated section rather than a drive-by lone cite, and just lobbing one cite at it is genuinely simplistic, but OK, it's a cite, and we can accept it for now. [I haven't even verified it yet, but for the moment I gladly assume it's a valid cite.]. Then second we have 2) a cite that says that 53% of the pay gap is due to the different fields that men and women are employed in. OK. We have 2 cites. We are assuming those two cites are fully and absolutely valid. Now, what is the third thing we have? We have some Wikipedia editor attempting to draw out a narrative that connects two unconnected cites, taking on an editorial voice and "explaining" those cites by framing them within his or her worldview. It's one Wikipedian standing on a soapbox and informing the entire world the what two completely unrelated cites "Really Mean", and "Real Truth" of what what "Really Causes" the factoids behind those two cites, according to that Wikipedian's personal view of things. That is all we have. Two unrelated factoids and a rather sweeping soapbox. Why is that impossible for you to see?• Arch♦Reader 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "please listen. Please think." please don't patronize your fellow editors. Also I'm 100% certain that the two cites we're discussing do not constitute the whole universe of work on compensating differentials. Jeez. Protonk (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Protonk; fully agreed. ArchReader, your attitude and behaviour here are both problematic: please try to take a more constructive attitude. On the rework of the article, I fully support a rework - I'm somewhat confused as to why the starting point is checking cited elements rather than removing totally uncited elements, though. Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This post is very, very long, but it is necessarily long because the arguments require close and extended examination. Please do not insult me by personal attacks, saying tldr/condescending/patronizing etc. If you don't wanna read, then you vastly reduce the value of your input to this phase of the discussion... OK then…. The "socialization" section was originally such a beautiful & classic example of WP:Coatrack that – really – someone should copy/paste the version in recent article history to the WP:Coatrack essay, as an illustrative case. Now, before I discuss the current text, please allow me to suggest that we define "socialization" in the relevant section. A source that Protonk seems to have added (Reskin 1993) states: "Both the socialization and neoclassical-economic perspectives on segregation contend that workers' occupational outcomes reflect their preferences. Socialization theories emphasize the different preferences the sexes develop before reaching adulthood..." So "socialization" means that women self-select stereotypically "feminine" careers, but the decision reflects preferences formed during young, formative years.. This definition is useful for the discussion, and later assertions need to be worded carefully to fit within that definition (or deleted if they cannot fit under it)... OK, the current text, as amended by Protonk after my extended complaints, is still quite problematic. It currently has 5 sentences. The first sentences provides a topic, with cites. That's kind of OK in so far as it goes (tho I will check the cites later, and tho I think it's still not unpacked enough.. but OK for now). The second sentence – @Ironholds:, if you want to delete unsupported sentences, this one sticks out like ten sore thumbs. Its assertions are sweeping and unsupported. The third sentence, recently added by Protonk, adds a new thicket of factoids but provides little light to the reader. In fact, it seems both self-contradictory and unsupported by the source. Work with me here: the first half says "Job choices influenced by socialization are often slotted in to 'demand-side' decisions in frameworks of wage discrimination." It's sourced to Reskin, and it's true that Reskin discusses demand-side decisions (among other things), but I can't see where this source claims that demand-side decisions are held to be more prevalent in determining presumed inequality (and may I presume that "often slotted into" means "often described as being"?). Even worse, the source defines "demand-side" as including "employers' preferences, the demand for workers, economic pressures, discrimination, and personnel practices". Note the absence of the word "socialization" among demand-side issues. But the source describes "supply-side explanations" as including "the size of the labor supply, the neoclassical human-capital explanation, gender-role socialization [my emphasis], workers' values, and the opportunity structure..." So the source defines socialization as a supply side explanation, while the Wikipedia article's section about socialization makes the (unsupported?) claim that Reskin says "demand-side" considerations are (more?) often discussed. That doesn't seem to make sense; in a section about socialization, you should be trying to establish that supply-side explanations (including socialization) are powerful explanatory factors… so what we have so far is that 1) the source doesn't seem to claim what Protonk claims it claims, or if it does so, then it does so only in passing, and 2) Protonk's claim undermines the section's argument rather than supporting it, anyhow. Moving on, the second half of that sentence says "… rather than as a result of extant labor market discrimination influencing job choice". What does that mean, and how should we connect it to the first half? It seems to mean that the market – the demand-side – acts in ways that influence the employees – the supply side --- to make decisions that segregate themselves by gender. Well, socialization is self-segregation (but presumably it is "bad" in the sense that it is a result of "brainwashing", forgive my loose terminology, though I actually can't find where reskin makes that particular assertion). So the whole sentence say… maybe it says… "Job choices influenced by [supply-side] socialization are often described as being a result of demand-side considerations… rather than demand-side considerations affecting supply-side decisions." To me at least it sounds like multiple layers of self-contradiction. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. Continuing on, we have: "Nonetheless, women continue to do well in higher education when compared to men. Yet studies show the existence of a pay gap even when a woman and man hold the same degree and same experience level." Would anyone like to explain to me what on earth this assertion has to do with the.. socially-impelled self-selection that reflects attitudes formed during youth...? Thanks for your patience. • Arch♦Reader 07:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to forgive your loose terminology. If you're going to huff and puff about how I have to read the above carefully otherwise I'll "vastly reduce the value of [my] input to this phase of the discussion" then you can learn the correct fucking terminology and acquaint yourself with the sources on the subject. Protonk (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
My Reskin addition was sloppy, I'll fix that. You'll want to read 260-263 for some detail (and other sources) on the role of socialization specifically. Protonk (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
ArchReader, if you genuinely don't see why your attitude or behaviour here is a problem, then this is likely to end badly. You've come in and stated that the article is a hot mess; that's not a problem. The problem is that the attitude you're taking is patronising and it's not a personal attack to point that out. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Your comment immediately above is more or less identical in meaning to a comment you made in another forum here, so I refer you to my reply on that same forum, here. Sorry for the inconvenience. • Arch♦Reader 01:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Protonk, my "loose terminology' is that I was being casual when I said "brainwashed". No need to reach for the f-bombs. Thank you for telling me that I need to read more about the topic. I already know this. My plan for this page is a very, very long term plan ("eventualist"). I plan to learn quite a bit as I go. I have never pretended to have any knowledge in this area at all. However, what I do have knowledge about is writing. This article is... I'm concerned that any description that really captures the level of inadequacy present here would be construed as a personal attack on its various editors. To call it "sloppy" would be an act of kindness. I'm not saying this to score points in some personal quarrel with you or anyone else. I'm saying it because it is simply and flatly true. But this is not the end of the world. We have the technology. We can rebuild it. • Arch♦Reader 13:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to be concerned about offending you when this "Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force. The higher-paying jobs that males predominantly take are *unpleasant* and often even *dangerous* ones (e.g., coal miner). Women self-select careers that have better working conditions but lower pay. The heading is POV because it very explicitly attributes job selection to those mysterious disempowering social forces." is already on the table. If your prior is to treat long and widely documented socialization problems as fairy tales using a pretty selective reading of compensating differentials, then I'd consider you to think deeply about whether or not that is some commonly held "truth". If you'd like I can offer some systematic or narrative reviews in the literature outlining different models for thinking about the wage gap as well as empirical support for them. This is not some fanciful semiotic jaunt through a late 20th century poem. Economists, sociologists, demographers and anthropologists have been studying the changing gender makeup of the labor force (worldwide, but in US/Canada/UK/Germany more than others) as well as the pay gap since before world war II. Much of that research goes into the inputs to the labor force, the sociological or economic reasons why women might choose a specific job, career path or education. That specific branch still has hundreds of papers from sociologists and economists. This is not new ground and it is not some abstract concept. Protonk (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
As an example of this, let's take a look at women on submarines. In the US they basically couldn't be assigned to submarines until 2013, and then only in specific boats (newer ones). Let's fast forward 10 years. Submariners are still likely to be disproportionately male, despite personnel officers and recruiters desperately looking for women interested in submarines. Let's also imagine, because we're being charitable, that everyone along the chain to get to the fleet is really excited about a women going through the pipeline. They wouldn't be the first (we've already seen them), but let's pretend that the military suddenly becomes pretty welcoming of women in this avenue. What about the women who choose to do it? Some of them will get captivated at an early age by some image and will immediately self-select, just like men did prior to 2013. But how might that happen? None of the movies they see about submarines will have women in them in any significant way. Das Boot, Hunt for Red October, Crimson Tide. All men. Those movies recruited so many fucking submariners on their own but a girl or woman watching them doesn't have anyone to relate to of the same gender. Even if they do relate to a man--and let's be fucking real they've basically had to forever--they're being sent a pretty clear signal that girls weren't allowed. But she presses on and when she's nearing the end of high school or college she talks to a recruiter. Lots of times recruiters will sell specific jobs (usually those with a performance bonus attached) based on personal experience or bring in someone who can. If this woman wanted to speak to a stateside submariner, the person would most likely be male. Ditto for the instructors at her school(s). 10 years after integration and all the senior people in the training commands are still men, because anyone with 10+ years in is male and nearly all of the remainder are male as well (sheer numbers plays a role). If they make it through, the command structure at sea will be largely male for some time (for the same reasons). You'll maybe see one female submarine XO by 2023, maybe. Out of dozens of boats. Same with senior enlisted. That's the best case scenario. None of the actual discrimination we know exists in the service and none of the exclusionary boys club attitude that has been part of the submarine force for decades. Best case scenario and navigating that as a woman is a pretty lonely road. By the by, those submariners? They make more money on average than the rest of the fleet, they get promotions faster (across most rates) and they get to live in base housing earlier. Someone who chooses another job in the navy (save pilots or specops, two other notable boys clubs) will make less money and we will report it as them self-selecting out of a more arduous job that pays more. Protonk (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The above is just a hypothetical with a formerly sex-segregated, higher paying industry. Plenty of jobs have paths to them where socialization is crucial even for pointing already motivated people the right direction. That's not even throwing out larger, documented problems with socialization in determining outcomes. Like I said, best case scenario. None of these mechanisms are magical or brainwashing in any conceivable way. They're studied (empirically, qualitatively and in the lab) and the results that are robust are pretty non-trivial. They also (thankfully) mostly fit with the more common models of discrimination. Socialization can co-exist as a barrier to equal pay with other forms of discrimination. In some places their pronouncements conflict depending on the authors you choose, but that's where narrative literature reviews and work in academic handbooks and monographs is really helpful. People have spent a lot of time writing about this. The sources are out there. Protonk (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Protonk: It seems that the genesis of this discussion, and an ongoing theme, is that I have created a misperception that I am militating in favor of one POV over another (that is, in favor of one explantion over another). That perception arose because I deleted an entire section about socialization, and basically said it was bullshit. Now, please let me correct the misperception: I am not saying that the socialization explanation is bullshit. I am saying the the section as it exited was both WP:Coatrack and WP:POV. I am saying that the section of Wikipedia text, as it was written, was complete and utter shambolic bollocks. Now, if we create a very well-written section about scoialization, which carefully defines and qualifies all its important terms, and carefully and prominently states that this is only of possible explanation, then that section would meet with my applause and strong approval. I am not about striking down one POV; I am about identifying POVs as POVs and explaining them very, very, very, very, very carefully. Does that make more sense? • Arch♦Reader 07:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so your statement "Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force." was just talking about the prose of our wikipedia page! And I presume the heading you're referring to here ("The heading is POV because it very explicitly attributes job selection to those mysterious disempowering social forces.") is Effect of socialization on gender pay-gaps? That sounds pretty totalizing. None of that is about a prior position on the wage gap? Look, we all come to the table with priors. The goal here is to work together to write a resource that is useful, clear and neutral. I'm perfectly willing to do that. But this true neutral editor schtick has got to stop. It's tiresome. First off, if you go around shouting at other editors about how neutral you are, how many people do you think that convinces? Do you think after you've said "I am about identifying POVs as POVs and explaining them very, very, very, very, very carefully" my first thought it "wow, this guy is really careful and neutral, I better respect what he has to say"? How about you write very carefully and edit very carefully and let other editors make their own determinations of your neutrality. Because to do otherwise is to waste everyone's time. Protonk (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Protonk: You may have noticed that I have stopped editing the page, except for moving a couple sentences (unchanged). I did that (as opposed to editing the article) specifically because others obviously disagree with (reverted!) my edits, and Talk is where things are hammered out. I am sorry if this has wasted your time. I will happily edit the page, but it will take a long time and a lot of reading even to get cranked up & going. Forex, I think a very early section should discuss different measures of the gap (units, I mean: raw weekly, etc.), and discuss how selecting a unit of measurement impacts the end result. The lede's assertion that "The European Commission defines it as the average difference between men’s and women’s hourly earnings" may be literally quite true, but it is very misleading, because it omits a discussion of the fact that different sources use different measures, and comparing their results is apples and oranges. Then I wonder if the whole structure of the article could be reworked. The "possible explanation" sections could follow Reskin's description of demand/supply and her list of those, with a discussion of each. This seems logical and orderly. There needs to be a discussion of this topic's status as a political football, etc. There needs to be a more global view. And many of the sources are stale, either broken, or just old and outdated. And on and on. If you will let me edit, I will try, but it is a massive undertaking, and intermediate edits will be inadequate etc. So I can work in userspace – yours or mine – but the problem with that is that other editors will change things here in the interim. Or I can work here, but I think it needs several new sections, so it will be a bit chaotic. Or I suppose I could write in userspace but do it section by section, then import one section at a time when it is finished. And so on. So then. Feel free to judge me by my edits. • Arch♦Reader 11:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Or we could just work on it at TalK:Gender pay gap/sandbox . Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
My vague memory from many years ago is that it is somehow or other against some rule somewhere to put sandboxes in mainspace (article space). • Arch♦Reader
Ditto, hence the suggestion for Talk:Gender pay gap/* instead of Gender pay gap/*. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
full rewrite, stage 1: verification of citations
At the moment that I'm writing this, I see 53 ref links (tho some are linked to more than once). The first stage of a full rewrite is to verify that every citation actually contains the assertion that Wikipedia alleges it contains. I will do this, tho it may take a while, because I don't really have large blocks of contiguous free time. Any and all cites that do not contain the purported assertions will be removed immediately. Please do note that I will not always read the full text of every source, but will instead search for (CTRL-F) a number of related keywords. It is possible that I may make a mistake. If I do, please do not assume bad faith. If you point out any errors that I may make, I will restore the relevant text immediately. Also, I plan to use exactly the same edit summary every time, to make these edits particularly easy to spot. I was thinking rm assertion not supported by src, but if you have a better suggestion, please do let me know. Next, I realize that sometimes the ref might have been valid when originally inserted, but someone may have stuck some dodgy text in between the (originally valid) citeref and valid text. So I will try to backtrack a few sentences whenever I find a bad cite, to see if the cite can be retained next to valid text. And finally, I probably won't be working in a straight line from cite 1 to cite 53, merely because that's a little tedious. But I will check every cite. Thank you for your patience. • Arch♦Reader 09:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I am just now beginning to gather sources. While we're working on this (which for me at least may be weeks if not months), I will keep a list of fulltext sources that I acquire at: User:ArchReader/gendergap. Tks. • Arch♦Reader 10:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
request consensus: modify referencing to include notes section, for page numbers
It would be a long time before I actually change the existing article page, but while I am working on a rewrite, I would like consensus to start from scratch with a referencing system that I believe supplies more specific information to the reader. The example I have in mind is the system used in Funerary art: the <ref> tags are used to place page numbers and occasionally comments in a Notes section (see WP:CITESHORT), and full references are written out just below that in a References section.• Arch♦Reader 11:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems totally fine by me; I tend to use "References" for page-level entries and "Bibliography" for the works, but naming conventions around this are fuzzy for good reason. Comments I think we should shy away from unless they're supported by references. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The article could use some background information on how earnings are calculated. In the "Weekly Earnings" time series chart, for instance, do women earn less because their hourly rate is lower, or is it because they work fewer hours each week, or both? The reader can't tell by looking at the chart, but will have to consult another chart or table that gives hours worked per week by gender. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems uncomfortable with compensation issues and attendant inequalities, approaching data collection in a scattershot manner that omits significant information. In the USA, fringe benefits are a major part of a worker's compensation; weekly earnings tables do not reflect benefits such as health insurance, vacation time, or employer contributions to retirement accounts. Nor are the effects of taxes. If these were included, the gap could be either smaller or larger. I did notice that some notes and references are embedded in the chart's media page. Weekly earnings come from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, and (I believe) are reported by householders themselves. A section on these considerations will be difficult to write, however, as it really calls for someone who knows this subject professionally. Jessegalebaker (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is vague, imprecise, confusing, potentially misleading, etc. from top to bottom, as its sister articles are as well. Needs top to bottom rewrite. I have it on my to do list, but alas it's way down near the bottom of that list. Thanks for the input tho; it's helpful. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)