zlacker

[return to "Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies"]
1. jankot+62[view] [source] 2018-02-15 09:09:17
>>andren+(OP)
From my experience location dependence is the greatest obstacle for women to join high earning STEM jobs. With paygap women find it more difficult to live in expensive cities. Also remote work allows more life balance for care givers (who are mostly women).

It should be seen as sexism, if company does not offer remote jobs.

◧◩
2. OscarC+t3[view] [source] 2018-02-15 09:34:34
>>jankot+62
Your first two sentences seem like a circular argument. Women can't get the high paying jobs because they don't live in the right places, they can't live in the right places because they can't get the high paying jobs.
◧◩◪
3. jankot+e4[view] [source] 2018-02-15 09:48:52
>>OscarC+t3
Not really. If woman gets high paying job, she makes less money for the same work.

Also women have more expenses than men (ping tax, daycare...). Big cities are unaffordable even at the same salary.

◧◩◪◨
4. gambit+z4[view] [source] 2018-02-15 09:57:21
>>jankot+e4
>>Also women have more expenses than men (ping tax, daycare...).

What's ping tax?

How is daycare more expensive for women? Surely, a man raising a child on their own will pay exactly the same amount of money for daycare? In a normal case, where partners raise children together, they surely pay for daycare from a shared budget, not just from the woman's salary(that would be just bizarre).

>> If woman gets high paying job, she makes less money for the same work.

The counter argument to this is that if this was true, companies would only hire women, since apparently they do the same work for less money!

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. psyc+B5[view] [source] 2018-02-15 10:12:00
>>gambit+z4
"Pink tax": the idea that goods marketed to women are priced higher than equivalents marketed to men.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pink+tax

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. gambit+Z5[view] [source] 2018-02-15 10:20:50
>>psyc+B5
Same thing works the other way around but I don't know if it has a name. I frequently see things like yoghurt/juice or shampoo/antiperspirant/shaving accessories to be priced higher if they are branded "for men". You can literally buy the same thing in pink colour and it's cheaper.

The only case where I agree is that stupidly, UK government applies extra tax to sanitary items for women, while cosmetics for men do not have such tax. That is stupid, but that's a literal tax chosen by the government.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. mantas+Ng[view] [source] 2018-02-15 13:05:11
>>gambit+Z5
Mind to give a link for that UK extra tax? I wonder how it's worded :)
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. gambit+pj[view] [source] 2018-02-15 13:28:41
>>mantas+Ng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon_tax

It's just normal VAT, the issue is that many "necessary" products don't have VAT on them, but tampons or pads do, even though they are a biological necessity.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. xeeeee+4p[view] [source] 2018-02-15 14:24:57
>>gambit+pj
Toilet paper is often taxed too, but of course it doesn't fit the narrative.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. gambit+Lr[view] [source] 2018-02-15 14:43:18
>>xeeeee+4p
You can use a bidet instead and never buy any toilet paper. If you are a woman you need to buy some sanitary products at least once a month.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. mantas+IE1[view] [source] 2018-02-16 00:25:58
>>gambit+Lr
It's more like men bodies have more robust design, thus they get away with less items.

It's like women-day-off when they're on their period. On one hand, it'd be nice and makes sense. On the other hand, that sex-based discrimination.

Meanwhile over there we got flat VAT for everything. No tampon tax issues! :) Paying extra 21% for basic food sucks though.

[go to top]