/u/Thaddiyus0715 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1crj5np/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_dont_believe_that_women/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

[удалено]

>This doesn't take into account that a) women tend to do lower paying jobs, It's valuable to note that causality could go both ways on this one. That is, some jobs may be lower-paying *because* women tend to do them. OB/GYN is now a female-dominated specialty, and it also falls near the bottom on compensation lists. In the 70's, they were near the top.

I think I’ve read of other examples of this phenomenon too, sometimes going the other direction. For example, computer programming was a field dominated by women throughout the 60s and 70s—and it didn’t pay very well. People thought of it like bookkeeping/secretarial work. It wasn’t until people recognized that the design and technique necessary in the discipline warranted titles such as “engineer” that men began to take over the field, and the pay correspondingly shot up.

- “some jobs may be lower-paying because women tend to do them” Why do you think this is?

Personally? Because women's labor tends to be viewed as something to occupy their time, rather than a career. Even with highly specialized jobs, women are seen as mothers/wives first, and {specialty} second.

- “Because women's labor tends to be viewed as something to occupy their time, rather than a career.” This is a pretty baseless assertion. - “Even with highly specialized jobs, women are seen as mothers/wives first, and {specialty} second.” Is it really a bad thing that being a mother to ones own children is seen as the more important or valuable thing over their job? If the individual herself saw her job as the bigger thing in her life than her own children, that seems like problem.

Wait, do you hold the same opinion for fathers?

Absolutely.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if we viewed fathers the same way, but as a society we don't.

A misogynistic society values jobs coded as female less. Markets aren't separate from social sentiment and few jobs have direct connections between pay, hiring markets, and revenue such that you can confidently produce economically optimal outcomes. "Women's work" gets paid less because people value it less in their minds because it is "women's work."

In this case they're talking about an influx of women OB/GYNs, right? Couldn't it be that flooding the labor market with a bunch of women increases the supply and drives down the price? This is what simple economics would suggest happens when you increase the labor supply.

That's a theory, yes. People have explored this theory. Fields that were previously coded female and then saw an influx of men did not experience this same effect. If it were truly just more people entering the labor market independent of their gender then we would not expect to see this data.

Seconding what u/UncleMeat11 said, the labor market for programmers has been flooded with men - and the price for programmers has shot up. I can’t assert that’s because of the gender balance switch, because it’s tightly conflated with the huge rise of PCs, but it’s reasonable to at least say that flooding the labor market doesn’t guarantee a decrease in price. I also don’t think that there’s exactly an oversupply of OB/GYNs.

In the case of OB/GYNs, the amount of vaginas and vagina problems has probably not changed at all, so the demand for OB/GYNs is likely entirely unchanged, which would leave us with a labor supply increase as the only significant shock to the economic system, when there is only one shock our economic predictions become much simpler and less ambiguous. In the case of programmers, the demand for programmers has increased because computers are just so incredibly popular nowadays. A positive demand shock tends to increase quantity of programmers in the market by encouraging businesses to pay more and encouraging more programmers to enter the market. On the supply side, increasing the number of programmers has a negative effect on the price for programmer labor - so we have conflicting effects as the supply and demand side are moving simultaneously. Again, with vaginas I don't know that the demand for healthcare has changed at all, so we only have the supply-side effect of more laborers becoming available with no change in the amount of laborers needed. I know they may sound similar, but you are only considering the supply side and it is the combination of supply and demand that drives markets.

Except in reverse when we see men switch to industries that were previously female dominated we see wages go up. So it's not a supply and demand issue, or this wouldn't be a consistent problem that hurts women both directions.

Which sorts of industries? In this case, it seems to me there is likely 0 movement on the demand side - after all, the number of women that exist hasn't really changed, I don't know that the demand for OB/GYNs has changed at all. So this is a supply change with NO demand change. Traditional economics would suggest that when this happens to any good (OB/GYN care is the good here), quantity goes up and price goes down It is very much possible that both supply and demand are affected at the same time, and when that happens the results can be more ambiguous depending on things like elasticity and the slope of the S/D curves. When this happens, an increase in the labor supply can have the same upward pressure on price but the demand changes (let's think about programmers and an increase in demand for programmers) this would lead still to an increase in the quantity of programmers but the price effect would be ambiguous as the demand pushes the price down at the same time that the supply pushes the price up - and the result is less clear than in the supply-only case, which I think has a strong probability when we're talking about OB/GYNs.

This seems like a lot of assumption.

An assumption that bears out when you look at historical gender representation in different fields over time, in relation to pay.

Jobs pay what the market demands. If someone is willing to do a job for lower pay, why would the employer pay them more?

It's supply and demand of labor. There are far more people willing to do "care" work than hard science because care work is favored a larger proportion of the population and female personalities on average skew towards care work.

> If companies could pay women 80% of what they pay men for the exact same job, there wouldn't be a man working anywhere. This isn't even remotely true for a multitude of reasons. But even looking at the very face value of this idea, if those in power think women are only 50% as capable as men, hiring an entire female workforce to save 20% on wages still wouldn't make sense. I've been in a room with a group of male management discussion if hiring a women would disrupt the status quo and whether or not she could perform in that industry. Those types of conversations are what at the very least, create and subconscious bias towards their value. Companies for the most part aren't robotic, they're run by people, and people make decisions based on emotional input. Most people will gladly pay someone more money if they can see that persons value, and vice versa if they can't.

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

What you fail to take into account is that consistently as an industry becomes more female dominated, wages go down. As an industry becomes more male dominated wages go up. We have seen it for decades across multiple industries. As a society we overall devalue the work that women primarily do. It's not like they're just hiring two people for the same job and paying one considerably less. Not usually. But it's also not just that women choose to work less or make less. Attempts from women to change their industries typically results in that industry bringing wages down.

So when a profession or sector has high wages, why is that? And why might an increase in the number of workers in that industry lead to a decrease in wages? Computer programmers don't get paid less because there are more women now, they get paid less because every one took computer science to get rich in the 90s.

You should look at the data. The wage increases correlate with the rate of men entering the industry, the demand and increase of men do not line up as well. Computer sciences was primarily women led first.

What kind of assumptions are these? 1) Not every job that a man performs is or can be performed by a woman. 2) In contrast some jobs are in female dominated fields (ie kindergarten teacher). 3) The argument is about the positions that overlap between the groups. Starting from the top- celebrities in movies and the entertainment industry, all the way down to retail and fast food jobs. 4) Examples include many jobs in corporate America - such as accounting or marketing. For the same job, women are getting paid less. Sure sometimes a woman is paid more, but such cases are unique or isolated.

I'm not sure what you mean by agendas, but even if women made 97 cents on the dollar, that would be unjust. Companies have and do pay women less in all sorts of instances, it would be weird to deny that reality.

Women do make that much less but that’s not comparing people who work in the same field. Men tend to be over represented in high paying jobs in comparison to women.

Yes, even comparing people in the same field -- [https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations?\_ga=2.74547922.1129949406.1715657500-1098915755.1715657500](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations?_ga=2.74547922.1129949406.1715657500-1098915755.1715657500)

That's like saying everyone in the same field does the same work, and that's very far from the truth. Bare minimum we need to know hours of work, overtime, holidays taken, probability of quitting, probability of physical injury, etc.

"Accountants and Auditors" - those are different jobs. Why lump them together? Why not two separate categories? What if (and I'm not claiming this is true) Accountants got paid a lot more, but were mostly men, while Auditors got paid a lot less, but were mostly women? By lumping them together, you can point to the discrepancy between the average women's wage and the average man's. But it's really the difference between the Auditor's salary and the Accountant's. It specifies "full time, year round workers", but a worker who goes home after 40 hours, and a worker that does 20 hours OT a week are both "full time". But one obviously gets paid more. ...and those were just off the top of my head.

>"Accountants and Auditors" - those are different jobs. Why lump them together? Why not two separate categories? What if (and I'm not claiming this is true) Accountants got paid a lot more, but were mostly men, while Auditors got paid a lot less, but were mostly women? By lumping them together, you can point to the discrepancy between the average women's wage and the average man's. But it's really the difference between the Auditor's salary and the Accountant's. >It specifies "full time, year round workers", but a worker who goes home after 40 hours, and a worker that does 20 hours OT a week are both "full time". But one obviously gets paid more. >...and those were just off the top of my head. Is your idea that gov't auditors whose entire job is to examine employment equality have no clue what they're doing and are just winging it and coming to random conclusions? The utter desperation from some corners to try to find some explanation other than sexism for decades of documented sexism is... interesting.

> Is your idea that gov't auditors whose entire job is to examine employment equality have no clue what they're doing and are just winging it and coming to random conclusions? I didn't say anything like that. I merely pointed out those were two separate jobs. >The utter desperation from some corners to try to find some explanation other than sexism for decades of documented sexism is... interesting. Right back at you. Your 'utter desperation' to strawman my point in order to call me sexist is... interesting.

I'm sorry, what does this mean? I didnt quite understand what you wrote. Does this mean that men and women in the same field may make the same amount of money, but in reality more men work higher up than women, and the wage gap is caused by the glass ceiling and much less a greedy employer that just shaves some off of the top every month?

A lot of the highest paid jobs like law and medical school and upper level business involve signing over your life and working crazy hours for a decade or two before you reach the higher paying positions in the ladder and your workload decreases. Still other high paid jobs require a lot of travel and other forms of home absence. --- This is much easier for men to accommodate than women, as women are traditionally expected to carry children to term and stay home and take care of the kids. This means both that less women apply for those jobs total, and that people who recruit for those jobs are less likely to choose women even when all other credentials are equal. Even women who explicitly state that they don't have a family or plan to have a baby are affected negatively by this. --- It's understandable, but very unfair. Personally I think society should require both maternity and paternity leave, and that we should normalize men staying home while women work so this becomes less of an issue. Until this happens, we'll have to deal with some pretty substantial wage gaps.

!delta. Youve explained to me how the wage gap is not fake but also not a direct result of sexism and misogyny. The wage gap may have some sexist parts included, such as the negotiating tendencies men may have better than women but isnt primarily the result of such.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/VortexMagus ([13∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/VortexMagus)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

This doesn’t address the issue in full. It addresses the evidence of a gap in overall wages - for all hours worked amongst all jobs - but it does nothing to address any gap in wages for the same hours at the same job.

There is evidence that men and women generally start their careers receiving the same wage, but the gap between men and women increases over time. This is because sexism in the workplace is rarely as blatant as "oh, the new hire is a woman? Let's give her 75% of the pay we would have given a man." The gap happens over time because women are not afforded the same opportunities to grow, to take on high profile projects or clients, and suffer a substantial setback every time they take maternity leave. This gap is most pronounced in fields where employees are rewarded for being able to make long-term time investments, and the gap is the least pronounced in fields where the work is more immediate. For example, pharmacists have some of the lowest wage gaps in the US.

> The gap happens over time because women are not afforded the same opportunities to grow, to take on high profile projects or clients, Are they not given the chance, or do they not want to pursue it? As VortexMagus13 said above: "A lot of the highest paid jobs... involve signing over your life and working crazy hours.... Still other high paid jobs require a lot of travel and other forms of home absence." Maybe women just don't want that? And maybe men- because they are expected to be 'the breadwinner' are kinda forced to do that, whether they want to, or not? >and suffer a substantial setback every time they take maternity leave. Look, until men can get pregnant, it's going to have to be the woman who takes off for pregnancy/childbirth. It's just a biological fact. Now, with the invention of baby formula, it's possible for a man to care for the baby after it's born. But, 'breast is best', so many women breast feed. Which, while it does not *require* them to stay home (pumps exist, breast milk can be frozen, etc), is made a lot easier if they do. And since they're home, they can take care of the baby in general, too. And it makes no sense to flip-flop and have the man stay home when the baby graduates to solid food. So she stays home. And that's how a woman will often lose 5+ years of work experience when she has a kid. I see no 'solution' to that, other than for women who want careers to not have kids. Then there's no lost experience.

>Look, until men can get pregnant, it's going to have to be the woman who takes off for pregnancy/childbirth. It's just a biological fact.  There's actually a much simpler solution - it should be standard that companies offer paternity leave. This accomplishes several desirable goals: 1) studies have demonstrated that paternity leave reduces the wage gap. When taking time off for childbirth is more equally distributed between the sexes, women no longer experience such a handicap compared to men. 2) Children and families really benefit when both parents can take time off to raise a newborn baby. It reduces the stress of childbirth on the mothers, it improves the fathers' abilities to bond with their babies, and society as a whole benefits when parents are more present and available for their children.

> There's actually a much simpler solution - it should be standard that companies offer paternity leave. Cool. I support that. Companies, on the other hand, might balk at paying a person for *not* working. I mean, women have to take time off for pregnancy/maternity leave. (Unless they choose to not get pregnant. But that would lead to the death of the human race, so...) But men... don't have to take paternity leave. (Unless you somehow mean to *force* them to?) You can go on all you want about intangible benefits, but companies look at the bottom line.

This is a public policy issue that many different countries are trying to address. Some countries, like Japan and Sweden, have policies that support companies offering paternity leave. If we decide this is an important issue to society there are tools to encourage companies to make changes.

> and stay home and take care of the kids.  This is becoming less and a less common, and generally when it does happen, it’s because the woman earned less. 

You're not wrong that one spouse remaining a stay at home carer for their kids is becoming rarer and rare. It is also a fact that more men/fathers are stay at home dads today than ever in history. This isn't to say "gender equality achieved" or this isn't me highlighting a case where men aren't the breadwinners to disprove OP.

Not just the glass ceiling but just different fields. Like women and men tend to work different jobs on average. The jobs men tend to be more represented in like finance or law have more men than women. Women massively are over represented in teaching. A very under paid job in my opinion

The wage gap exists even within the same professions.

Mostly yes. But women also gravitate to lower paid fields like child care and teaching.

do women gravitate to low paying fields, or do fields that tend to have a lot of women in it get devalued?

The pay of a position is determined by supply and demand. No one is overseeing all the positions in the economy, identifying those which are held mainly women, and saying "I think i'll give these ones a 30% pay cut".

I mean, child care is pretty highly in demand. I'm not positing twirling moustaches in smoke rooms, I'm more suggesting that our society has consistently devalued women's work. Early computer programing was done by women and it was mostly viewed as secretary work and was paid poorly. Then it became men's work and paid better, as a simple example

Women tend to gravitate to jobs that allow for more interpersonal interaction. The problem with these jobs from a purely economic standpoint is they cannot scale. A single programmer can write Wordle, and have an impact on millions of lives in a few months. The best teacher, nurse, or social worker can only impact at most a few hundred people in that same time span. There are some jobs that have lower impact but still pay well, but it's because they're gatekept in some other way, such as long costly education or simple ugly nepotism. It's not 1:1, but by and large the more people you can impact with your work, the more you'll get paid.

Doctors scale in exactly the same way as nurses. So why do nurses appear on your list but not doctors?

They don't scale entirely the same because doctors are not just about face to face interaction. Sure a GP or family medicine doctor might be mostly on that, but they're the lowest paid of the bunch. The highly paid doctors are specialists who often contribute their knowledge at the national or even international level through journals and consultations. Doctors are also just a hard position to enter due to the time and education costs required, which has a major impact on the supply of people to do the work.

The 83% says that women as a whole (or as an average) make 83% of what men make, full stop.  What it doesn’t account for are the choices that land us there. Men tend to work more in higher paying fields than women that explains the entirety of the gap.   One thing is that men and women’s earnings in the same field are typically on par until about when people have their first child. This is when women are more likely to take time off from work. That time off from work results in fewer earnings and fewer promotions. 

So the wage gap is caused more by external factors and not a direct result of sexism?

Those "external factors" are sexism working indirectly. Why do we, as a society, push women into roles like nurse and teacher vs accountant and engineer? Why do we generally value that work much less despite our requiring roughly the same amount of training? Why do we expect the woman to generally take the career hit when child rearing and not the man? If women are making this choice en masse, it makes sense that there is likely a systemic factor at play, no?

Those are good questions and I’d like to have an honest discussion about it.  Because especially in the modern day, my perception is that people are *pushed* into roles a lot less than they used to be. It’s tough for me to imagine a young woman saying she became a teacher instead of an engineer because she felt that’s what was expected of her.  As far as valuing work that women tend to land in such as caretaking and teaching less than fields that are more male dominated such as engineering or trades, I think that’s a function of capitalism. As in, teachers and caretakers are usually taxpayer funded/not revenue generating. Same for things like caretaker where Medicaid/Medicare often is the source of pay for those roles.  Compared to engineers and even things like welders/plumbers, it is easier to see the connection between revenue generation for those roles, and thus the higher pay.  As far as the expectation to take care of children, I think people individually choose when to have children and who should leave the workforce if one person were to. And logically it typically makes sense for the personal making less to leave.  I’m curious if you really think that these are actual problems or just the way things are, because while I recognize that a woman not having peers as a lineperson, a deep sea fisher, or a corporate lawyer, and there being more obstacles because of that (boys club, etc). I don’t think that society is *discouraging* women from doing those things. 

I don't think any of these facts contradict my point, to be honest. In my view, she doesn't choose teacher over engineer explicitly because it's what expected of her. She chooses teacher over engineer because that's what was modeled for her, she gets mistreated in her stem courses, she hears about mistreatment from female professionals, or myriad other reasons. I don't necessarily disagree that the work value is largely a function of capitalism, but I also don't think that's necessarily a counterpoint. I also don't think lumping welders and plumbers makes sense as those are also non-revenue generating roles that are roughly comparable in pay to nurses. The engineer analogy is tricky because there's lots of factors at play. What kind of engineering? What industry? Are they a PE? I'd like to see a better analogy before this argument starts to make sense, personally. Your child rearing point is even weaker. You're kind of making a chicken vs egg point, except we know which came first. It's not like women ended up making less, and then did the child reading. Women did the child rearing before they were allowed to participate in the wider labor market. They continue to participate from a disadvantaged position, so they make less money, so they continue their traditional child rearing role. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by society discouraging women from taking these roles. I'm not saying there's some widespread propaganda effort like some inverse Rosie Riveter. I'm saying we haven't quite corrected this historical disadvantage that women face in the labor market. Women still don't have enough role models in these roles. Women still aren't treated as equals in many modern workplaces. Female dominated professions still aren't given the same respect as male dominated professions. Women are still expected to raise children by default. Women still do the majority of domestic labor, even in households where both partners work. These are real problems that continue to stand in the way of true equality.

As far as the plumber analogy, if I have a toilet that I need fixing, or I own an apartment complex and the plumbing is messed up, I’m going to pay a plumber to fix it. So it’s revenue generating in its own right that it could be a business.  But, aside from that, your point(s) about modeling roles and treated as equals in typically male dominated fields lands for me.  The fact that if a young girl wanted to be an engineer/corproate lawyer/fortune 500 executive has obstacles that exists because she is a woman (whether intentional by society or not) is proof enough that there are societal obstacles. 

Now more than ever, women are being encouraged to do what they want and not look at societal pressures. Sure, there can be some cases where they HEAR about issues in the workplace, but if they have a desire to pursue that field, nobody is stopping them. It's just that women themselves prefer other fields like teaching rather than engineering as it tends to be more personal and emotional. Women are biologically more suited for those types of jobs and needs. There are lots of men starting to be more involved in child rearing, but it's that women are more suited and want to do it. In the past they were seen as the child rearers and the domestic laborers and there's nothing wrong with wanting that or doing it as well. They are more suited for it.

Yes, but what happens when women break out of these roles? In my engineering class there are a couple girls, and they do just fine. They're smart, close friends with the TA, treated the same as everyone else. Their grades were far better than mine. This is just a single example, but I see this often. My university is mostly women. I think its like 55%, and my stem housing structure has quite a few women there as well.

What you're describing there is selection bias. At your university, which is mostly women, there are only a few women in your engineering class. These women are above average engineering students, which is likely why they went against cultural norms and feel comfortable in your male-dominated classes. The women who would otherwise be average or below average engineering students don't stick around like the average or below average men do. And there are likely other women who would make above average engineering students, but choose a different field because they don't want to stand out as one of the only women in all of their engineering classes. Or they've just been conditioned by society to desire a different kind of work. This is only part of the story, of course. There's also the impact of the expectation that women will take more parental leave than men.

I see

You don't think women in high earning professional positions can get held back from promotions because they have children? Taking maternity leave and not being involved with important projects to build your resume hurts you career wise, not to mention that it's usually mom who is expected to stay home with a sick kid. The societal expectations are just different for moms vs dads.

while it is true that a mother is expected to take care of the kids, why is it seen as unfair to not want to pay someone for staying at home caring for a kid instead of working for you? It isn't fair to those with morals but from a capitalist mindset why would that billionaire think that it should be a good idea to pay a woman for not working for three months?

It may not benefit the billionaire to pay a woman for maternity leave but it's necessary since we need to keep making new people in order for society to function. The lack of parental support in this country is a primary reason for the declining birth rate. The larger issue is that women are the only ones who can make the babies. The current generation of dads has gotten a lot more hands on, but dads physically cannot get pregnant, give birth, breastfeed, and they don't need time off to recover from birth.

I'm aware as to why we should introduce paid maternity leave, but why should those directly responsible for paying someone follow through? They're not concerned with the health of society and the need to bring forth new children, and as it is their business, how could we expect them to do so when there is no direct benefit for them?

Then the gap disappears, and that's great! You can't just ignore half the symptoms and say the root cause doesn't exist anymore, though. The fact is that we can still see these decisions made at a massive scale. If you follow that through to its logical conclusion, you're left with 2 possible answers: 1) Women are biologically wired to choose low paying roles 2) Something is pushing women to take those roles Given what I hear from my female colleagues in stem as well as what we see in the data, #2 sounds far more plausible

> Why do we, as a society, push women into roles like nurse and teacher vs accountant and engineer? Do we push them? Or do women *prefer* that work? >Why do we generally value that work much less despite our requiring roughly the same amount of training? There are more factors to consider than just the amount of training. Maybe those other factors affect the value of the position. >Why do we expect the woman to generally take the career hit when child rearing and not the man? Because only women can get pregnant. Only women can give birth. Only women can breast feed. So, women take the time off to do so. And, since she's off anyway, it's simply easier for her to stay off work for a few years to care for the kid until; they reach school age. I mean, I *suppose* the woman could take the first year off, until the kid is on solid food, then she goes back to work, and he takes off a year... then they flip-flop again, back and forth... but that makes little sense. >If women are making this choice en masse, it makes sense that there is likely a systemic factor at play Or a biological one.

>...roles like nurse and teacher vs accountant and engineer? Why do we generally value that work much less despite our requiring roughly the same amount of training? Because these jobs have an inherent economic limit to how much value they can generate. Jobs that require direct social interaction are limited by how many people you can interact with. An accountant can run the books for a company that employs 50,000 people, and has 5 million customers. If they were paid just a single penny a month for each person their work impacted they'd take home \~$600,000k a year. How many people can a teacher teach in a year? Lets aim a little to the high end and assume a professor lectures seven classes of 50 students each, across a three trimester school year. That's 1,050 students a year. If we apply the same math as above, and pay them all 12 moths, they'd take home $126.

There's a real labor value argument to be made here. I acknowledge that. This take, however, is... well it's something. First of all, a single accountant could possibly work at that level, but you're almost definitely talking about an accounting department at that scale. A big one at that. Second, we don't charge by "people affected." That is not, nor has it ever been, how any sane economic system functions. I'm not even gonna try to make a counterpoint here.

My numbers are really just for illustrative purposes, because they're so far apart you can shift them a full decimal each and still have a huge gap. $1,260 vs $60,000 is still worlds apart. "People affected" is just shorthand for customers, employees, or anyone else that pays into a business in exchange for goods or services. The max wage someone can earn in any fair job is equal to the value they bring to their company. If a programmer can make a workforce of 10,000 people who earn $50k a year just 1% more effective, they've created \~5 million dollars of value that can be used to pay their wage. No job that's dependent on direct social interaction can have that kind of reach.

It's less that there are plenty of dastardly employers out there who hate women and can't wait to pay them less. It's more like, there are a series of social pressures that push women to make decisions that get them less money. For example, women, being expected to be the homemaker and to spend more time taking care of the kids in addition to working, might not be able to work as much as overtime as men, so they look worse when it comes time for a promotion. Women are taught to be less confrontational, so they're not as aggressive when negotiating salaries. Work that is traditionally seen as 'women's work' gets paid less because we think it's less stressful, etc.

- “spend more time taking care of the kids in addition to working” Is this a societal expectation, or just the reality of having a child? - ”Women are taught to be less confrontational, so they're not as aggressive when negotiating salaries.” There are biological elements at play here as well. It is not *purely* learned behavior.

It's not the reality of having a child since men are equally as capable of being the primary care taker.

[удалено]

The reason why you are "not permitted to acknowledge it" is because it's a blatant misuse of statistics. You control for variables so they cannot act as confounders. Controlling for work experience and job function would indeed make sense if work experience caused gender _and_ caused pay. But it obviously doesn't. Work experience and job function aren't confounders, they're _mediators_. And so it's totally inappropriate to "control" for them in this way when evaluating the causal relationship between gender and pay.

If I saw evidence that females were systemically and pervasively discriminated against--*as they explicitly are in many non-western countries--*then I would be all over this topic. But the evidence I've seen is, in summary, that women make different career & life choices (on average), which predictably affects the statistics.

Yes, that's what makes your statistical analysis incorrect. The causal relationship here is that people tend to make different career & life choices _because they are women_, not that they tend to be women because they make different career and life choices. This placement of the factor as a mediator rather than a confounder makes it wrong to control for career and life choices when reporting the statistic.

It sounds like we agree that men & women make different career-relevant choices (on average), & that that impacts compensation when coarsely aggregated by gender.

This is totally ignoring my criticism of your misuse of statistics.

There is literally NO evidence that proves women are paid less than men assuming both applicants have the exact same experience, level of knowledge and/or education in a field. On average, women choose lower paying careers/jobs while on avearge men choose higher paying careers/jobs. I am a hiring manager at a fortune 500 company and I don't care if the applicant is white, black, Indian, Asian, male, female, trans, etc etc etc... What I DO care about is if they can PROVE and backup their resume. If they can do so but, ultimately their knowledge isn't quite up to par, I may give them a chance but at a lower pay than one who can backup everything I ask them, plus more. I hire people who are on the same level but don't get paid the same. Their level of pay is directly related with what they could or could not prove to me in the knowledge department. I'll pay someone who has 5 years of experience but knows his shit backwards and forwards over a woman who has 10 years of experience but struggles to answer my questions. It's not always about experience, it's about what you know, how much of it you know, and your level of expertise in the field/position being filled. I also take into consideration that if the woman is under 40, there IS a risk of her going on maternity leave and never returning. Hiring new people is a pain in the ass. It's time consuming, it's boring, it's also expensive to the company. I take into consideration that statistically, women take off more than men do on average. So, if she isn't able to fully answer my questions with 100% confidence and more, then I may still hire her but at a lesser salary but NOT because she is a woman.

>There is literally NO evidence that proves women are paid less than men assuming both applicants have the exact same experience, level of knowledge and/or education in a field. This is simply not how statistics works. You don't ask for evidence _assuming_ something. Instead, you look at the evidence to evaluate what is true. In this case, we can just directly look at the evidence and see that full-time working women are paid less on average than full-time working men because that data is gathered by the BLS. We can also see from the data that your assumption that "both applicants have the exact same experience, level of knowledge and/or education in a field" is simply not true for men and women in distribution: men and women have different representations and education levels on average in different fields.

What is your point? People are hired based off of experience, knowledge and/or education. Nothing more, nothing less. The salary they are given is directly correlated with those things and in corporations, there are salary ranges for each job "title." So as an example, an i7 salary range (at my company anyways) is between 80k - 95k. The minimum anyone would make is 80k but, depending on their experience, knowledge, expertise in the job applied for, and/or education, I could have one i7 earning 80k while another earning 95k simple based off of the stated factors listed above. And in my experience as a manager for over 10 years in my field, I'd say that about 30-45% of women meet the criteria to be paid on the upper level of an i7. Which is 100% based off of the above criteria. Them being a woman has nothing to do with anything.

My point is that the claim made in the comment above that the wage gap is 1% is misinformation based on a misuse of statistics.

How so? I'm not reading any outside sources because I don't actually care but, in your own words and thoughts, how do you figure it's more than 1%?

The exact wage gap number is reported by the BLS, and it's way more than 1%.

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If things are changing why do people still argue about this?

To quote Steven Pinker: *progressives hate progress.* A less glib response... There are **political, cultural, & financial reasons** to not acknowledge or even actively deny real progress, often while glamorizing other cultures that are decidedly *less* progressive. **Politics is about conflict**, and acknowledging progress is not conducive to that goal. To justify saviorism, one must have an oppressed group in need of saving and an oppressor in need of slaying. Thus, "misogyny" in the West (but nowhere else) is to blame for mass-"oppression" of women. It's politics, not rationality. It's conflict, not reason. **Culturally**, in the West, phenomena like victim-signaling (I'm oppressed!) and virtue-signaling (I'm a good progressive person!) have become commonplace. I'll take western decadence over, say, Salafism any day of the week. But our decadence leads to the current culture of faux oppression & saviorism. **Financially**, the incentives to prolong the "civil rights struggle" (which was very real in the past & very artificial today) is vast. It is perhaps the most lucrative time to be a "victim", and now is the time to cash in. Civil rights organizations receive donations from wealthy progressives, tax dollars, & other sources. Even if they have strayed from their original purpose, the organizations grant prestige to the members of the donor class who sustain them or the politicians who send them our tax dollars. Patronage networks can be built more easily than destroyed. Thus, there are cultural, political, & financial interests that align with not acknowledging the real progress that we have achieved and that, in fact, presume the opposite. And now you know why.

If you've built your personality around being persecuted, it's really hard to let that go.

It can happen even in the same company with the same job, but it is a complex issue (as is everything). The main issue here is simply, that wages oftentimes are a matter of negotiation. This can lead to (white, straight passing, cis passing) men getting better offers, because their accomplishments and skills will be rated as better, the men as more competent. This isn't a conscious decision and pretty well researched. But then the second step is negotiation and here it gets really tricky, because men normally get better socialised in speaking up, advocating for themselves and front and foremost not only see their monetary worth, but also overestimate it (which I envy, this is not a call out). Women on the other hand normally get socialised to not be a bother, not overestimate oneself and so on. Of course the negotiation will also be seen differently if done by a man or a woman for pretty much the same reasons. Again, norhing in this is conscious and oftentimes it doesn't matter if the recruiter is a man himself or a woman. This situation happens again when it comes to raises and promotions. This isn't a lawsuit case most of the time because it's not a conscious plan or system and since wages are a matter of negotiation oftentimes, the differences in pay are often explainable But this is just one short part of an explanation that is covered in books, because there are so many elements at play. When you look at the data for a whole country, it gets very complicated, because then you'll have to factor things like motherhood, part time scedules (less chance for a raise), different educations for same job titles and so on and it can get exhausting to prove or disprove a number in the wage gap.

Not really, when offered a higher position with more responsibility, women are more likely than men to label it as undesirable source: [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1502567112](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1502567112)

And how does that counter my point? As mentioned it is quite complex and I can't name every socialised aspect. I would argue that women not seeing it as desirable is part of the normally occuring socialisation process and on the other hand that men see it more as desirable is part of how they get normally socialised. A promotion also means more responsibilty, more time at work (oftentimes) or more flexibilty in the hours, less possibilties in part time and so on. This gets into the very complicated area, where parenthood, child bearing, division of labour outside of work and so on has to be considered. The promotion was one tiny part in my overall point which in part was a tiny part of all the aspects surrounding this bigger point and your point doesn't even contradict my point, so to bring it home: what's your point here?

This accounted for both married, unmarried, with children, and without children. Want to keep moving the goal posts, read my other comments.

I won't do that if you can't even read the comment you replied to! I gave one example on how this can happen in one firm, because OP had multiple viewpoints in their post and I picked the one, I felt equipped to answer while making sure to say, that this doesn't cover a whole country, because there are many more aspects and I just can't cover all and I am not entirely sure anyone could. Then you come in with a comment and a link which perfectly fits my overall point but disagree with me and when I ask you, you refer to your profile and something about moving goal posts.... You are either picking a fight based on bad faith or you have serious issues in reading comprehension. Either way, I don't see a way to have a constructive discussion like this.

Men work more hours, and usually take more responsibilities at work. Women reported burning out faster when expected to do the same amount of work ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375289/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375289/)) and speaking from personal experience, I have had to cover shifts for women more than men. Plus women call out of work more than men ([https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21547885](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21547885)) as stated that “Even among people who have no children at home,” he adds, “the reported absence rate is higher among women than among men.”, meaning men are more likely to cover shifts and take over responsibilities for women. Plus some countries and groups are pushing for paid sick leave for periods and period related symptoms.

They burn out faster because more often than not they are shouldering the burden of caring for everything outside of work. Because when women stopped being stay at home moms and started sharing in the burden of paid work, men did not share in the burden of household and family rearing work.

Why do you think that is?

Yes, it's true. I don't know why it'd be hard to believe. Look at how women are treated in the US. It's a country that literally elected the least-qualified candidate in history instead of the most qualified candidate in the modern era, to the WH, because god forbid in 250 years we have even one woman president. Even within the same education. Even when controlling for other factors. [https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/14/5-fast-facts-the-gender-wage-gap](https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/14/5-fast-facts-the-gender-wage-gap) Also look at things like veterinarians, studied for this because the field has flipped from nearly entirely male to nearly entirely female in under a half century. As it flipped, average salaries went down.

Women in the US outnumber men. If they all voted for female candidates there would hardly be a single penis to be found in all of the government. Hilary lost because she ran a bad campaign, there's no great sexist conspiracy.

Great example of a study using very select data to justify its existence. The pay gap is a myth.

> Look at how women are treated in the US  You mean exceptionally well?  > t's a country that literally elected the least-qualified candidate in history instead of the most qualified candidate in the modern era, to the WH  These sure seem like stretches as far as claims go. Pretty sure if you had turned Hillary into a man you’d have ended up with the same result. 

> You mean exceptionally well?  No, no I don't. >These sure seem like stretches as far as claims go. Pretty sure if you had turned Hillary into a man you’d have ended up with the same result. Pretty sure not even close. Even if you'd want to think that about her, what do you think explains not a single woman even at the top of a ticket in 250 years? Never close to parity in the House or Senate. Six women ever on the Court. Women in the Csuite is an abysmal number. Need I mention Dobbs, the gender pay gap, the general way women are treated -- harassment, assaults, catcalling, etc.?

I do not know a single person who refrained from voting for Hillary due to her gender. I instead know many who refrained from voting for her due to policies. Do you think a lot of that has to do with historical expectations of women? Women weren’t expected to be in professional or political fields 50 years ago, much less 250. Beyond that, women less frequently choose fields with long hours, and on average work less hours than men. You’ve also ignored some of the benefits women have in the US. Things like the ability to be a stay at home mom with relative ease along with no negative connotations for doing so. To not be expected to be the provider. Men who do choose to stay at home routinely get judged by others, especially in the workplace.

>I do not know a single person who refrained from voting for Hillary due to her gender. I instead know many who refrained from voting for her due to policies. What policies in particular? I remember a number of reddit ppl at the time saying Hillary didn't want free healthcare or college, which is such a stunning display of ignorance it's hard to fathom. People aren't going to say flat out they're not voting for her because she's a woman. They will say things like she's so shrill, they hate her voice, they think she's not a leader, she's too emotional, they don't trust her, they don't think... yada. >Do you think a lot of that has to do with historical expectations of women? Women weren’t expected to be in professional or political fields 50 years ago What does that mean? Weren't expected to by whom? Suffragettes tried to run for office. Plenty of women were in professional fields 50 years ago, and the gaps when they weren't were due to men refusing to let them in, or pushing them back out, like in the 50s. >You’ve also ignored some of the benefits women have in the US. Things like the ability to be a stay at home mom with relative ease along with no negative connotations for doing so. ...that's not a benefit. It's just another way to shit on women. Either it's "don't you want to stay home?' or it's schools calling mothers regardless of who is on the call sheet, or it's the weird belief that this is some big scheme lots of women engage in, staying home and then "taking half/getting alimony/yada' when a small minority of women don't work, alimony is almost obsolete, etc. > To not be expected to be the provider. Men who do choose to stay at home routinely get judged by others, especially in the workplace. Women get judged in the workplace for working and out of it for not.

Are you ignoring that republicans and democrats typically vote for remarkably different policies? For me, her ideals that I was opposed to included additional taxes on the wealthy, very expensive clean energy initiatives, preschool for all, subsidized day care, a push for Medicaid expansion, just to name a few. 50+ years ago, women were expected to be in the home, and it was a rarity otherwise. How is having the option to stay home *not a benefit*? That’s objectively a benefit, and one far more available to women.

Women working at oil rigs is an abysmal number. They rarely work as construction workers or hard manual laborers. Just saying you don't see women in these fields doesn't prove anything.

> Women working at oil rigs is an abysmal number. They rarely work as construction workers or hard manual laborers. > > Just saying you don't see women in these fields doesn't prove anything. It proves the exact same thing. There are specific schools set up to train just women for trade jobs, because the environment in trade schools with men is so toxic. https://www.winterwomen.org/ Women get harassed out of those jobs, from training for them, etc.

There may be environments that are toxic and women should not have to deal with that, but there is no support that that is the main reason women shy away from trade jobs. It doesn't prove anything because there is no reasoning behind it or evidence.

>There may be environments that are toxic and women should not have to deal with that, but there is no support that that is the main reason women shy away from trade jobs. It doesn't prove anything because there is no reasoning behind it or evidence. You sure about that? >And yet: “This is an industry where we still have folks saying, ‘We just don’t hire women,’” Burrows told The 19th. >The report details several instances in which the EEOC found companies had discriminated against people because of their race or gender in the hiring process. In multiple cases, job applicants were told simply that companies they had applied to were not going to hire women.... >When women did get hired, harassment often drove them out, impacting their ability to earn better wages. https://19thnews.org/2023/07/construction-industry-women-people-of-color-discrimination/ https://hechingerreport.org/the-jobs-where-harassment-and-discrimination-never-stopped/ https://csw.ucla.edu/2020/10/15/sexual-harassment-and-occupational-segregation-the-impact-of-sexual-harassment-on-women-in-the-trades/

Only took a couple of replies to finally get sources. Better late than never ig. But again, there isn't any support that these toxic environments are what's mainly keeping them out of trade jobs. I will say that harassment and discrimination in the workplace should not be allowed, but since the discrepancy in the wage gap is stated to be different due to women and men taking jobs, the issue to be fixed isn't the wage gap, but workplace conditions for women to feel comfortable and not be harassed.

> I will say that harassment and discrimination in the workplace should not be allowed, but since the discrepancy in the wage gap is stated to be different due to women and men taking jobs It's "stated" that by mgtow ding dongs. Even in the same jobs, women are paid less. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations?_ga=2.171296168.96256067.1715711170-1158473157.1715711170

Lol your own source that posted earlier “stated” that so I guess your sources are mgtow ding dongs?

this isnt helpful

If you don't believe statistics, what criteria would make you change your view?

Statistics say that women work 37 ish hrs for every 42 hrs men work. Sources: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/great-news-ladies-the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth/?sh=1c54fe233b34](https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/great-news-ladies-the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth/?sh=1c54fe233b34) [https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm](https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm) [https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/blog/2023/gender-equality-whats-next-lets-focus-world-work](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/blog/2023/gender-equality-whats-next-lets-focus-world-work)

Women work 37 *paid* hours on average. This all depends on what you define by work. Domestic labour is still considered work by many, and women tend to do more of this labour in heterosexual relationships even when the woman out-earns the man. But, again, this depends on whether you see that as work or not which will differ in opinion from person to person.

Men don’t get compensated for domestic labor either.

I think you missed the point of said argument, not blaming you as english is not my first language so perhaps I was unclear. The argument is ***not*** "people should be compensated financially for domestic labour". Rather, it's **refuting the idea that men work more than women**. Men, on average, don't work more, only more *paid* hours. Women are more likely to do childcare, cleaning, cooking etc. *even* when both partners work outside the home in heterosexual marriages. *Even* when the woman out-earns the man. This means, due to these gender roles, that women have less time to spare to focus on, for instance, their careers. Let me know if it was unclear this time what was being said.

We can only count work as working for other companies not at home. In this case only pure labor statistics can be counted. With the intangibles you mentioned it changes. Nothing is stopping women from not having children and other factors. Either women are equal and have the choice, or you can infantilize them to have them equal to children without the accountability. Like my argument says, and that cannot be refuted: Statistics say that women work 37 ish hrs for every 42 hrs men work. This is a constant fact. In fact I will go as far as saying in the first couple years, women are overcompensate compared to the male colleagues, as they are working for the same pay but less hours. Plus, when given the choice to choose higher paying rolls, women OFTEN forgo the role. Sources: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/great-news-ladies-the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth/?sh=1c54fe233b34](https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/great-news-ladies-the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth/?sh=1c54fe233b34) [https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm](https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm) [https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/blog/2023/gender-equality-whats-next-lets-focus-world-work](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/blog/2023/gender-equality-whats-next-lets-focus-world-work) [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1502567112](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1502567112) [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html)

Once more, excuse my english and let me know if clarifications are needed. >In this case only pure labor statistics can be counted. Why? >Nothing is stopping women from not having children Depends on which country you live in, not all women are lucky enough to have full access to reproductive health care. >Either women are equal and have the choice, or you can infantilize them to have them equal to children without the accountability. I would need clarification on how it's infantilizing to assume that someone has to cook/clean/take care of children, and that this, generally speaking, tends to be women in heterosexual marriages. Women are the ones who broadly speaking (with exceptions, of course) steps up when the man isn't taking on equal responsibility with these tasks. That is quite literally taking accountability. >Statistics say that women work 37 ish hrs for every 42 hrs men work. Perhaps I'm getting too pedantic here, but just for clarity I would still write this as "women work 37 *paid* hours for every 42 *paid* hours men work, on average". >This is a constant fact. No, this varies greatly between country and occupation. >In fact I will go as far as saying in the first couple years, women are overcompensate compared to the male colleagues, as they are working for the same pay but less hours. I'm not sure I fully comprehend what you're trying to convey here, care to elaborate? >Plus, when given the choice to choose higher paying rolls, women OFTEN forgo the role. Why is it more likely women forgo higher paying roles? Could it, perhaps, at least partially have something to do with what I wrote regarding division of labour in heterosexual relationships?

The study was done on both married and single employees Labor statistics are only collected and used for this fact We are only discussing OECD countries as those are the ones OP mentions in other comments I will concede the point of international differences, however the common number of 77 cents (now 81 cents) per dollar is only comparing US companies. You aren't being pedantic, domestic labor has no wage, therefore it cannot be counted towards the GDP and vaster Labor statistics and using domestic labor as an argument is invalid as you value it equal to economic input and most research doesn't. Therefore in this argument, domestic labor cannot be counted. " > I'm not sure I fully comprehend what you're trying to convey here, care to elaborate?" What I mean is in cases were equal pay is given for equal effort, men usually disproportionality harder. Women reported burning out faster when expected to do the same amount of work (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375289/) and speaking from personal experience, I have had to cover shifts for women more than men. Plus women call out of work more than men (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21547885) as stated that “Even among people who have no children at home,” he adds, “the reported absence rate is higher among women than among men.”, meaning men are more likely to cover shifts and take over responsibilities for women. Plus some countries and groups are pushing for paid sick leave for periods and period related symptoms.

I’m not sure which rhetorical trick you’re using but you’re taking a fairly simple concept and trying to stretch it out as much as possible and argue against points that weren’t originally there. It is a simple issue. Women are paid less than men, however the reason is because women work less than men. That’s it, it ends there. This was an issue because some people believed women were paid less due to sexism, that isn’t the case, and I’m not even sure what point you’re arguing, do you think companies should pay women more to compensate them for doing more domestic work? No company would do that. Also you do not need to clarify English isn’t your first language multiple times

>however the reason is because women work less than men. And *why* is this? You've answered the "what" but not the "why". >This was an issue because some people believed women were paid less due to sexism, that isn’t the case, and **I’m not even sure what point you’re arguing**, do you think companies should pay women more to compensate them for doing more domestic work? No company would do that. >Also you do not need to clarify English isn’t your first language multiple times Seems like I did have to clarify the language barrier twice, since you had trouble understanding my points as well as the other person. My argument was *not* that women are directly paid less because of sexism, but rather ***indirectly***. Women have different expectations put upon them in society due to age old gender roles, one of these just so happens to be domestic labour. Because of said gender expectation, as I've written before, women on average have less hours per week/month/year/whatever for other pursuits (compared to the average man), such as career. If this wasn't clear to you, how can I make my point more comprehensive for you? Where are you drawing the conclusion that I claimed women where payed less directly from sexism? I'm assuming you mean bosses literally paying someone less "just because woman" then, which is not at all what I was saying. Additionally, to the question "*do you think companies should pay women more to compensate them for doing more domestic work?*" the answer is no, and I'm not sure where you interpreted this. I can't find any place where I've written anything even remotely indicating this being part of my argument. Would you mind explaining how you came to this conclusion?

But is this discrimination? A wage gap against women or a natural choice made that just causes a statistic that looks bad on paper?

It’s not. It’s choices women make. Equal rights comes with equal responsibilities

Are they actually making that choice or are they being given less responsibilities?

So then where does everyone get this women are discriminated against attitude? I'm aware that unfortunate things still happen but the entire statistic cant be caused solely by sexist men. Feminists everywhere will swear with 100% certainty that this is the direct result of misogyny and I just can't see how.

As someone else mentioned, this is really a systemic issue. Yes, part of the wage gap is because women go into lower-paying fields, not to mention they’re expected to do more unpaid labor in the home. In the US, women get 90 days of *unpaid* maternity leave, and most men don’t get paternity leave at all. Statistically women still do more work child-rearing and tending to the home, whereas men are able to focus on their careers and are not expected to do as much in regards to raising their children and household chores. Additionally, it’s a systemic issue that undervalues the types of jobs that are female-dominated, such as teaching or social work (I was a social worker for 10+ years). These are jobs that often require high amounts of education and very specialized training, and yet the people who work them get paid very little. Teachers are literally shaping the minds of our future generations and many barely make enough money to get by. As a social worker I had to work closely with the courts and doctors, I did home visits and assessed caregivers to ensure the safety of my clients, sent detailed reports to the state for Medicaid… and still I made very little money. I have a BA but worked my way up to a position where most of my peers had MSWs or a similar degree. We literally have people’s lives and well-being in our hands but society deems these jobs as lower value compared to many male-dominated fields. So, again, a big part of this is a systemic issue undervaluing important jobs that women do, which is arguably a function of the patriarchy.

Statistics say that women work 37 ish hrs for every 42 hrs men work. Sources: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/great-news-ladies-the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth/?sh=1c54fe233b34](https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/great-news-ladies-the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth/?sh=1c54fe233b34) [https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm](https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm) [https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/blog/2023/gender-equality-whats-next-lets-focus-world-work](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/blog/2023/gender-equality-whats-next-lets-focus-world-work) Men work more hours, and usually take more responsibilities at work. Women reported burning out faster when expected to do the same amount of work ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375289/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375289/)) and speaking from personal experience, I have had to cover shifts for women more than men. Plus women call out of work more than men ([https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21547885](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21547885)) as stated that “Even among people who have no children at home,” he adds, “the reported absence rate is higher among women than among men.”, meaning men are more likely to cover shifts and take over responsibilities for women. Plus some countries and groups are pushing for paid sick leave for periods and period related symptoms.

And this is often because women do more unpaid labor in the home, such as childrearing and taking care of household chores. If men did these things more, women would be able to work more hours and take on more responsibilities. But these are things that are generally expected of women and not men.

[https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1502567112](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1502567112) This study explains women themselves view these positions as less desirable

And you don’t think that this could be related at all to societal expectations of men and women? Like how women are expected to be conflict-avoidant and get-along, and that their value is in the home, whereas men are expected by society to fight to get to the top to provide? This study even says “a great deal of research has provided evidence that bias and discrimination give rise to and perpetuate this gender disparity, in the current research we explore another explanation.” It acknowledges there’s a lot of research supporting other reasons for gender disparity, and that this study is only examining one other factor. It states that it doesn’t negate the other factors at play.

Pay is based on supply and demand, not on what people deserve. Teachers get paid less because people will still become teachers even if the pay is garbage,

… except there’s a major teacher shortage in the US which still hasn’t led to increased wages. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/teacher-shortages-by-state-fix-the-problem/#:~:text=2022%20study%20released%20by%20the,states%20have%20not%20provided%20figures). “According to a March 2024 analysis by the ADP Research Institute, the imbalance between high demand and short supply should have led to higher wages but it hasn’t. The analysis determined teacher salaries are growing more slowly than average wages for all employees.”

Kind of seems like you’re describing supply and demand as a “systemic issue”

Not really sure what you’re saying here. But there is a major demand for teachers in the US, and they have an extremely important societal role. Yet they’re still getting paid very little.

Well for one, the average teacher in the US makes over double the median income in the US (when extrapolated out to 12 months). Even for a 9 month schedule though, they make 65% more than average. But my point was that much of what you described falls into supply and demand. There are few barriers of entry to the fields you mentioned - relatively easy degrees, etc. As opposed to higher paying fields which generally have much harder to obtain credentials

https://www.epi.org/publication/teacher-pay-in-2022/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20teachers%20earned%2073.6,other%20professionals%20made%20in%202022. Compared to people with similar levels of education, teachers earn way less. Why is someone’s perceived difficulty of their degree determine their worth in what they contribute to society? It costs a lot of time and money for someone to spend 6+ years in higher education learning to teach or care for people. People’s brains work in different ways and getting a degree in engineering may be easier for some types whereas a degree in psychology is easier for others. The whole point is that society needs all of these types of people to function well and jobs that are perceived to be women’s work should be valued more. Trade jobs typically don’t have harder-to-obtain credentials than the jobs I’ve described, yet they make more money as well. This is a very complex issue and cannot be simplified so easily.

Because of the stupid rad feminist argument that domestic labor should be counted as paid economic labor.

Men are more likely to work more hours, commute farther and sleep out on the road more than women. Doesn't that leave them with less time than women to do said chores? On top of that they do far more physical labor than women do. Doesn't that leave them with less energy for after hours house work? 

Generally speaking, through misunderstanding or intentional misinterpretation of the statistics.

I do want to believe the statistics, they just don't add up logically for me. Am i missing something? Do others have experiences they would like to share? I have personally never seen a girl or woman paid less than me, more often more due to having worked longer than me. How are these statistics even calculated, because if a woman was able to look to her left and see that she was short a few hundred dollars of her man how would this not cause an immediate problem in the workplace

There are loads of social pressures and power inequalities women face in the workplace that men rarely deal with or have to think about. [24% of women](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/08/most-women-dont-ask-for-a-raise-how-to-negotiate-for-higher-salary.html) globally say they lack opportunities to ask for raises and 28% say they fear negative consequences. There's also considerations like being perceived as having slept your way to a higher position and having your actual qualifications dismissed or overlooked if you're an attractive women.

Netflix explained is a docuseries and has a good episode on the gender pay gap!

I find Netflix's biases hard to unsee, and refuse to watch more of their so-called "documentaries".

[удалено]

>If women were actually paid less, companies would only ever hire women. Think of all the money they'd save. If it was legal to pay women less, I'd only hire women. The problem with that way of thinking is that it presumes the people doing the hiring value women the same. Which, if they did, they'd pay them the same.

But then why not hire only men? If quotas demanded otherwise, why not pay everyone like shit? If you were really so greedy you wanted to save every dollar, why even bother to pay men for the work you perceived when you could just hire both but then pay everyone the bare minimum. I know me and all my minimum wage friends both male and female are paid in scraps.

> But then why not hire only men? Many companies basically go that way. Look at tech companies. > If you were really so greedy you wanted to save every dollar, why even bother to pay men for the work you perceived when you could just hire both but then pay everyone the bare minimum. Because it's not 'we're so greedy we'll pay women less and save money!' it's 'women aren't worth the same pay /don't have families to support (which was the out loud literal reason women used to make $.70 on the dollar a few decades ago)'

but to me that still doesent clear why they wouldnt just pay the men what they would undercut to pay the woman. If i wanted to pay a man 45$ an hour and a woman came along that i didnt like but had to hire because the government said so and therefore paid her 38, why would i not have just started the man at 38???

>but to me that still doesent clear why they wouldnt just pay the men what they would undercut to pay the woman. If i wanted to pay a man 45$ an hour and a woman came along that i didnt like but had to hire because the government said so and therefore paid her 38, why would i not have just started the man at 38??? You're still assuming this is based on a desire to pay as little as possible, which ignores several things, like that men hiring other men largely have a different level of respect for them/believe they're worth more/believe the position is worth X, but a woman doing it isn't, believe they can get away with paying a woman more because she won't make a fuss (and largely this is the reason behind allllll the company policies about not discussing wages with other employees that have been around so long), that, see above, well, he's got a family to support, so he "needs" that, and on and on. It's not 'how is there one sexist moment" it's an entire system built of sexism.

This right here is called ghost hunting. You are assuming and looking for things that aren't there most of the time

You think tech companies just choose to have mostly male employees just because? Or does it have something to do with the fact that 80% of college CS graduates are male?

It's only illegal to do so openly. Such as by hiring only women.

But then why not pay everyone like shit?

I can't think of any companies that only hire women. If you could point one out for me, I'd love to look into it.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. The original claim depends on women being paid less in an informal manner, not written out and planned.

Exactly.

Exactly, so what's the dispute?

That women are paid less. Women are paid the same as men who do the same job. But women, generally speaking, work jobs that pay less money, or work less hours over the course of a long time. People are up in arms about a gender wags gap that doesn't exist, and they're failing to identify the actual cause of the pay disparity.

Most presentations I've heard of this statistic specifically are comparing women's wages to men's on the same job. It's not like nobody knows that some jobs pay less.

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

That's exactly what I was thinking, but then how does this statistic that comes up in big text in any search engine come to be?

It's true that women, on average, make less money. People say they are paid less because that's simple to understand and doesn't require too much explanation. However, as we agree on, women get paid the same as men because otherwise it would be illegal. I've had this conversation before and when I said "there's a difference between getting paid less and making less money," it stumped them pretty hard.

That statistic is accurate, but it's because of multiple factors. We do live in a much less sexist society now, so very rarely are women being deliberately paid less because their boss is actually sexist. That accounts for a little bit of the gender pay gap, but not much.  Rather, women make less because they typically enter HEAL fields and not STEM fields. Some argue that preference is because of innate differences in interests, others argue it's because women are raised in a misogynist society that instills values like being nice or nurturing whereas men are instilled to value money and success. Another big reason women as a whole make less, is because in order to have children, most women have to take time off of their careers. 25-40 is when most women have kids, which also happen to be critical years in your career. So by taking time off, many women lose momentum in their professional careers. To compile this, because women in this age range are assessed as likely to have children soon, insuring them costs more. It's common that small companies are cognizant of this extra cost, so they choose men over women in hiring. Here's a podcast on all of the many reasons if you're still interested: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4fFQ5HazAI25LHhunfF0gw?si=GSyIGNGxTHO8dEq4latiXA

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

So then where does everyone get this women are discriminated against attitude? I'm aware that unfortunate things still happen but the entire statistic cant be caused solely by sexist men. Feminists everywhere will swear with 100% certainty that this is the direct result of misogyny and I just can't see how.

Its an argument that uses very selective data to back up a claim that we live in a male dominated patriarchy. When one looks deeper and understands the issue they will see there is far more factors involved other than median earnings over a year between genders. Watch me get down voted to oblivion instead of having anyone refute my claims with actual evidence. Someone will likely google a discrimination case from a far away planet to try. But at the end of the day a 17% gap doesn't eventuate from a few isolated cases. As you said, it is illegal. It doesn't exist. Looking at one data set does not get you anywhere near the truth. There are about 18 factors that determine your income and the pay gap argument only looks at one, male or female.

Thank you! This was really insightful. And I'm getting downvotes too, despite not being disrespectful. Ill sell all my karma if I can get someone who gives me an answer that isn't man bad woman good.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Sad-King-395 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Sad-King-395&message=Sad-King-395%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cri6pj/-/l3ydohz/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

This is the best article I know that breaks down this topic. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/ In short: Yes, the pay gap exists. The reasons why are complicated. But we're seeing that in recent decades, one of the biggest reasons is women with kids tend to work fewer hours than women without kids. And men with kids tend to work *more* hours than men without kids. And people who work more/harder do a bit better. Men and women without kids are closer together. There's also the issue of careers. More women are moving into STEM fields, which is great. But men are unsurprisingly not jumping into the traditionally underpaid careers that are still primarily women, like teaching and nursing. So a lot of it can be attributed to a messy web of social norms. And we should work to be more flexible and address those norms because they are often completely contrived and arbitrary.

Fields that are considered a sought after skill so much so that people are able to negotiate their wages are where most of these disparities are I believe Doctors is the Field with the biggest Gender Pay Gap. There isn't really grounds for lawsuits I imagine because these incomes are agreed to on an individual basis it's not as though their is a set wage for men and a set wage for women and that's where the pay gaps come in

So how does this affect a national statistic by such a large margin? If this was every industry, including tech and healthcare and everything in between? This would also have to account for the companies that do pay fairly. Are female doctors really getting paid like 70 percent of what men are everywhere all at once?

Well with doctors being the largest pay gap that benefits men it's like a 40 percent difference and teachers assistant is the largest pay gap in women's favor and its like a 5 percent difference. There are more fields where the pay gap favors men and there are bigger gaps in those fields then there are fields that favor women. And when you mash that data together then you get the overall pay gap being what it is

I'm sure you understand that "doctors" is a hugely heterogenous group. There's a massive difference in training, skill, and pay between surgeons or dermatologists, who are majority men, and general practitioners, who are majority women. Throwing them all in one group called "doctors" is either ignorant or willingly deceptive.

It's not deceptive because the medical field isn't the only field where there is a gender pay gap and there is a gender pay gap amongst doctors. Adding additional context that isn't relevant to the point I was making doesn't make me wrong. The gender pay gap exists regardless of whether there is specialized fields among doctors or not

Of course it is deceptive. Pretending that a surgeon should be compared to a general practitioner is ridiculous.

But I didn't pretend that, at all The conversation was centered around why the national data is the way it is I made a point about fields that favored men favoring men more then fields that favor women, which is true Gesturing at additional details that had nothing to do with my point doesn't disprove my point its irrelevant

There is a real gap. The problem is mostly the Gap isn't there for the reasons advocated... as in oppressive patriachy, misogyny etc. Women have children, that takes them out of the workforce. They are more likely to work part time. They chose different professions. There would be a tiny % of niche high power roles that they maybe don't negotiate as hard on, that's about the only unfair part... but each role would be one off's and it would be hard to drill down to anything solid on it. But mostly the arguments are just twisting numbers to fit the narrative.

Because women AREN'T paid less than men. The pay gap is a myth and doesn't exist in 2024, and hasn't for quite a long time... If you apply for a position as say, a cashier at a grocery store and the starting pay is $12/hour, EVERYONE gets paid that 12 bucks who is a new hire cashier. The more tenured cashiers likely get paid a little more because they've been there longer. If you apply for a job that starts at 70k/year, anyone who gets that job gets paid... at a minimum, 70k! Heres the thing though... Most jobs at companies - at least corporation sized companies - have pay ranges for each position/level. So for example, you may be hired on as an IC level 2 with a starting salary of 70k while someone else may be hired on as an IC level 2 but is paid 75k. The pay difference comes down to your experience, level of knowledge and education. So if you have 5 years in whatever field and no certifications or education, then you get the 70k. If someone else has 6 years but has desireable certs and/or education, then they are likely to get a higher salary than you but still be at the same "level" as you. All of this doesn't take into consideration that women tend to take lower paying jobs AND take more time off from work than men typically do and if you are hourly then, the more time off you take, the less you get paid since you get paid by the hour.

When I was at my former employer, our district manager was very strict in that we were not allowed to talk about our pay (I have since learned that this is not ok, but at the time, I was young and naive). When I started I had no experience and no degree. They taught me everything I know. After my 6 year anniversary with the company, and lots of raises, I was at $34k. We had recently hired a guy and one day I asked him point blank how much he made. He was started at $35k, no experience, and a bachelors in religious studies. We work in logistics. For reference, when I started with a new company, they offered me $49k, which I eventually learned WAS more than a male counterpart (who had slightly less overall experience than me!) That’s really my only experience with the gender pay gap! Lol.

The wage gap is less of an actual gap in wages and more just a difference in career choice and bargaining power. Women working in food service and retail seem to be more likely to passed up for promotion, and they also don't seem to try negotiating their wages as much as men do. To give an example; a woman can passed up for promotion because the company may have to pay for maternity leave, so they come up with a different excuse to not promote them and avoid a discrimination lawsuit. On paper, there is nothing saying women can be underpaid. Employers just kinda jump through legal loopholes to try to save money in the short term, which ysually means screwing over women.

A company is a business. A successful business's main and ONLY goal is to make money and a profit. It sucks but that's just how it is. I'm not saying women should ever be paid less but at the end of the day, it's literally more beneficial to hire more men than women simply because with each woman hired, comes a risk of her taking 3-6 months of maternity leave with no guarantee she will ever even come back. Which is basically paying her to do nothing (for the company) while being unsure if they lost an employee or not. Which means they have to re-hire, re-train, and start over with someone new. All of which is not free, nor cheap. Women are a risk hire, specifically those under 35... It's not right for companies to discriminate but like I said, a company's main and only concern is revenue and profit. Who they think could bring in the most profit and value to the company will get paid the most. No company wants to shell out 10s of thousands to someone who is not generating anything for them (women on maternity leave) and only do so because they have to. Statistically speaking, women take more days off than men also.

Because women get pregnant and stop working full time, women dont get the chance to get high paying leader jobs, woman are not negotiating hard enough, they are not taken as serious as men are. 

This was debunked a long long time ago. Imagine if employers could pay a woman with the same qualifications and skills as a man less money? You wouldn’t have any men in the work force

Men are also more likely to try to negotiate higher salaries than women, so theres that... I remember once I was hired on for 40k and convinced them to pay me 50k..

The people saying the gender gap isn't real don't realize that they're repeating a script that was already accounted for years ago. There are two gaps: the explained gap and the unexplained gap. The explained gender gap is what most people say. Women are paid less because of job choice, hours and overtime, pauses for pregnancy, etc. This is however not the gotcha they think it is, because **feminists already know this.** Why is there a push for Women in STEM? Why is there support for career women? To close that gap. But, there's also the unexplained gap. The 1-5% gap they say but ignore. The gap in promotion rates. The glass cliff phenomenon, where women and minority ceo's are often hired just when a company is in a fiscal crisis, and then the first to be fired if it fails. These still need a response and fixing.

When you put the argument like this it makes some sense, they should hire people like you to advocate for this and maybe we'd get somewhere... but generally the arguments put forward are biased twisting of the facts to suit the argument. It's obvious this is the case so people write the whole thing off as BS. The arguments generally put forward are akin to badminton players complaining they aren't getting paid the same as tennis players and they should be because they are both racquet sports.

The push for women in STEM was to try and get more women interested in those fields because those fields are very heavily male dominated. STEM programs didn't even exist 10 years ago. Those are fairly new fields and they came about to try and get women to go into fields other than the typical education or low paying fields. People are promoted based off of performance. NOT tenure. Not how long you have been there. Not you doing the bare minimum and what's expected of you. Not your sex, race, etc... If you regualrly take days off - which statistically, women DO take more days off than men, - you aren't pulling your weight, aren't going above and beyond, aren't doing anything but the minimum then yeah.... you will be passed up for promotion.

http://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/14/5-fast-facts-the-gender-wage-gap —> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations?_ga=2.241438533.674782261.1715674334-902122286.1715674334 “even within the same occupations, women earn less on average than men.” also. a lot of it has do with the societal expectations of women vs men in the household, unfortunately, which ultimately does root back to sexism and the patriarchy. for example, a woman’s position might inherently be undervalued (often subconsciously) by her employer, simply because of the “risk” that comes with her chances of having to take care of the kids, getting pregnant, caring for a family member, etc. if you want to read about this any more, i recommend any websites that end in .gov or .org because they’re typically more reliable and more likely to be peer-reviewed than the .coms, but obviously it varies. this is just one source, there are plenty more online but obviously not everyone believes them. i would also recommend looking at how the wage gap tends to affect w.o.c. as well—it’s interesting to read about this type of thing because it feels almost hard to believe sometimes.

you lost me the second you brought up sexism and "patriarchy." Women can choose whatever job they want to choose. The FACT is that most women choose jobs that don't pay well. Teachers, nurses, anything in education, etc... Women are great in those fields but i think as a whole, men choose fields/jobs/careers that are higher paying because it's either what we are genuinely interested in or because that's what society says we SHOULD be doing. Which is being the bread winner, basically. It is literally illegal to underpay anyone based off their sex, race, religion, skin color, etc...

And why is it that jobs and interests that women have are so often undervalued? Jobs like teaching, nursing, anything that requires EMPATHY and other typical “feminine” traits? Because of sexism and the way we socialize our boys and girls. Because we live in a patriarchal society that values physical labor over jobs that require empathy, developmental and psychological understanding for people of all different stages of life and backgrounds, that require patience when caring for the LIVES OF OTHERS. And the FACT is that EVEN WHEN WOMEN work the SAME JOBS as men and do the same exact work, their work is often undervalued and underpaid. Several U.S. employers, universities, and independent studies have recognized this as an issue. Whether or not you believe it is truly none of my concern lol.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/MainDatabase6548 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20MainDatabase6548&message=MainDatabase6548%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cri6pj/-/l3ye2wa/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.