Gender bias in photography analyzed (by some interesting empirical data) and an essay

[blansky]

An MFA degree looks impressive on your resume when applying for a career delivering pizzas. Otherwise....

This is an interesting comment and an unfortunate fact of life.

Back in the 80s and 90s there was a lot of self help types and authors that preached the concept of "follow your bliss". Which was a movement counter to what the baby boomers parents did, which was often get a job or career that paid the bills, and they very often stayed in that job most of their working life. And their kids could see often how miserable they were. In fact to some parents back then, the whole goal in life was make it to retirement, piss on your boss' desk and leave.

So anyway the boomers, and their kids wanted a different kind of life and work experience, hence, the follow your bliss thing. And for many like me it worked out.

But for people coming out of colleges in the last decade or so are now hit with the realization, they with their arts degrees they are almost unemployable. The landscape changed and they are now stuck with a degree that is usually not translatable into a real career that pays the bills.

So there needs to be a new reality of get a degree that leads to a career that pays real money, and then work on you bliss in your spare time. If you can then transition that into a career, then fine. And if not you still have your main career.

Life sucks and then you die.

 

[winger]

That is part of the problem. We know women make less money then men for the same work, ...

Blanket statements like this are part of why some don't listen to the arguments. This is not true in all professions. Where I worked, I don't think the payroll computers even knew our genders. A Chemist III at step 5 made the same amount per hour as any other Chemist III at step 5. Promotions were primarily by seniority. The person in charge of the day-to-day operations of the lab was a woman for more time than it was a man during the years I was there. Of 9 senior chemists, 5 were female, 4 were male. Of the 4 supervisors, 3 were female, 1 was male. The pay was calculated for the position; it didn't matter what gender was in the position.

 

[CatLABS]

So there needs to be a new reality of get a degree that leads to a career that pays real money, and then work on you bliss in your spare time. If you can then transition that into a career, then fine. And if not you still have your main career.

True, but if that happens, then there will be someone deciding who can and who cant, and what the threshold is. And are we to decide for someone what they should do with this life?

 

[CatLABS]

Blanket statements like this are part of why some don't listen to the arguments. This is not true in all professions. Where I worked, I don't think the payroll computers even knew our genders. A Chemist III at step 5 made the same amount per hour as any other Chemist III at step 5. Promotions were primarily by seniority. The person in charge of the day-to-day operations of the lab was a woman for more time than it was a man during the years I was there. Of 9 senior chemists, 5 were female, 4 were male. Of the 4 supervisors, 3 were female, 1 was male. The pay was calculated for the position; it didn't matter what gender was in the position.

Despite your personal anecdotal experience - reality, and wikipedia tend to disagree.
It is a blanket fact that women make less money for the same work. About 23% less. That means few women will make the same or more then a man in the same job, but that most will make even less then 23%.

 

[winger]

Despite your personal anecdotal experience - reality, and wikipedia tend to disagree with that.
It is a blanket fact that women make less money for the same work. About 23% less. That means few women will make the same or more then a man in the same job, but that most will make even less then 23%.

Wikipedia is user-submitted. And every crime lab I know works the way mine did (all 50 states plus several private labs). Also some fairly large employers. I read an article with some very good hard data disputing the pay difference numbers, but I can't find the link. My experience is not just "anecdotal," it's common. Please stop being so dismissive of data points that do not agree with your opinion. Mine is far from the only "anecdotal" experience you've been given. You are not endearing yourself to anyone and have likely ended up on several more ignore lists. If you think that won't affect your business, you're being obtuse.

 

[removed account4]

That was the path I followed and most of the people I know did the same. Turned out to be a sham. I suppose it's a better sham than the follow-your-bliss sham from the perspective of being able to feed yourself, but certainly doesn't preclude the misery. Unfortunately what you propose as a new reality only really works within an old reality - the reality before it became an expectation that people answer emails from their bosses at 2am, be available on weekends etc. None of that is actually necessary of course, but rather is simply the product of technology combined with what is often called "performance culture". I'm sure there are others here who know what I'm talking about. So for many who followed the new reality, there is far less spare time for anything resembling bliss. More misery with more hours per week.

currently a lot people who work are either the equivilent of a modern endentured servent ( working to pay off debt )
or someone's serf ... if you are going to be a serf you might as well be a serf doing something you like.

 

[MattKing]

Despite your personal anecdotal experience - reality, and wikipedia tend to disagree.
It is a blanket fact that women make less money for the same work. About 23% less. That means few women will make the same or more then a man in the same job, but that most will make even less then 23%.

Statistically, this may be accurate, but statistics are one thing, and the conclusions we reach as a result of those statistics are another.

Th ere are a whole bunch of factors besides bias that lead to the statistical disparity.

In my (former) field there are more females entering the profession than males. They tend to start out making the same sort of money - often lousy - but way more of them make the conscious decision to seek out a healthy life-work balance. So they don't move up the income ladder as quickly, and don't reach the same high levels.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

You might think that for some job you've got all the men at a high pay level and all the women at a lower level. Rather, what is really happening is that some employees are at a high level and all the others both men and women are at a lower level. The discrepancy is based on many factors other than gender - usually perceived performance, knowledge, skills, or teamwork -- whether that perception is valid or not.

Over the last 30 years, I've worked at three large engineering companies. At my current one, where I've been for 18 years, 65% of the managers are women, including the CEO. At all of these companies, fully half of the engineering staff are women and I know for a fact that their pay is essentially the same as the men's. Many of them are in higher pay bands than men. Not only that, they get maternity leave with pay.

What about other companies or businesses that don't treat employees fairly with equal pay? I've worked places like that as well and what I've observed is that in a group one or two men will be paid highly and the others will be paid less for similar work -- but -- when men are paid less than other men "for doing the same work", those men don't talk about it or publicize it. They either move to a different job, different company, or suck it up until they can move on.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Figures ... "Wicked-pedia" says such and such. The click and mouse and know it all generation. Life doesn't always operate on that premise.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That is part of the problem. We know women make less money then men for the same work, and we know minorities are over represented in the lower levels of income, and we see strides to correct those issues as progressive positive societal efforts.

Not true in aerospace, defense, software, computer science, ... just about any where one can make a good living.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wikipedia is user-submitted. And every crime lab I know works the way mine did (all 50 states plus several private labs). Also some fairly large employers. I read an article with some very good hard data disputing the pay difference numbers, but I can't find the link. My experience is not just "anecdotal," it's common. Please stop being so dismissive of data points that do not agree with your opinion. Mine is far from the only "anecdotal" experience you've been given. You are not endearing yourself to anyone and have likely ended up on several more ignore lists. If you think that won't affect your business, you're being obtuse.

Nicely said. The OP is working his way off my approved list of vendors and if that happens he will claim that I am discriminating against him. I would not be discriminating against him, just his stupidity and arrogance.

 

[Sirius Glass]

An MFA degree looks impressive on your resume when applying for a career delivering pizzas. Otherwise....

That and $50US will almost buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[blansky]

True, but if that happens, then there will be someone deciding who can and who cant, and what the threshold is. And are we to decide for someone what they should do with this life?

I don't think the point is that someone else is deciding, any more than someone decided for you in the follow your bliss scenario.

It just needs to be pointed out to teenagers that the follow your bliss thing may mean you have a limited chance at a good income. I almost feel they are being sold a false expectation and then when reality hits, they feel sort of betrayed.

But lets face it the "arts" has always been a crapshoot to succeed in.



Also the fact is when I was 18 or 19 almost all kids went and got a job or went to college. I got a job. When the college kids were done they got a job. Almost nobody ever stayed and lived at home. There was virtually no fall back position. Done with school.... You left home.

I'm not saying " in my day" ... foolishness .... It's just that we all left home and found a job. I did 6-8 shitty jobs before I started my business. The dream career didn't just present itself. It was a fight to get it.

And something I was discussing with someone a while back was the fact that we as a culture, only in the last maybe 60 years, has the concept of people having a job/ career that they "loved" ever entered the consciousness.

People used to work to eat and live and try to save a bit. That's it. Almost survival.

So I'm the luckiest SOB in the world to have been able to do what I loved for the last 40 years. Lots of hard work but really all luck.

 

[Truzi]

Using logic, and including all the "evidence" presented here on both sides (even wikipedia), we cannot help but conclude that things have improved over the decades. Are things perfect? No, but they continue to improve.
If certain claims regarding the white hegemony are true, then at least some (certainly not all) of these improvements could only have been initiated by said hegemony. This in itself highlights flaws in the logic of some arguments presented.

So there needs to be a new reality of get a degree that leads to a career that pays real money, and then work on you bliss in your spare time. If you can then transition that into a career, then fine. And if not you still have your main career.

The problem with this is there is little spare time to devote to what I really wanted to do... but at least I'm employed. I think I'd rather be blissful

Wikipedia is user-submitted. And every crime lab I know works the way mine did (all 50 states plus several private labs). Also some fairly large employers. I read an article with some very good hard data disputing the pay difference numbers, but I can't find the link. My experience is not just "anecdotal," it's common. Please stop being so dismissive of data points that do not agree with your opinion. Mine is far from the only "anecdotal" experience you've been given. You are not endearing yourself to anyone and have likely ended up on several more ignore lists. If you think that won't affect your business, you're being obtuse.

Great points. As for your last sentence - more than a year ago in my case.

Statistically, this may be accurate, but statistics are one thing, and the conclusions we reach as a result of those statistics are another.

Th ere are a whole bunch of factors besides bias that lead to the statistical disparity.

In my (former) field there are more females entering the profession than males. They tend to start out making the same sort of money - often lousy - but way more of them make the conscious decision to seek out a healthy life-work balance. So they don't move up the income ladder as quickly, and don't reach the same high levels.

Another great point - similar to one I made in an earlier post, and you have given a very good example.

 

[winger]

I'm not saying there isn't a wage gap, btw. But the number being quoted - this 23% difference - is a vast generality based on the total amount earned by all women vs the total amount earned by all men. Once adjusted for # of hours worked and a few other important things, it's closer to 10-15%, possibly less. The same amount of time for the same job, there isn't nearly as much of a disparity. And it absolutely is getting better. A simple search turns up articles written by economists rather than by people with agendas.
The main reason that women earn less is because they are more likely to take time off to have children. I'm certainly not advocating a return to the 50s where that was the main goal of most women. And I'm not advocating that men do all the childrearing (in our house I can only imagine how that would turn out - we have a half-track in the yard already). But the majority of kids spend more time at home with their mothers than with their fathers. And that affects the career choices a women makes as well as her path within any career. Oh, and add the US military (all nearly 3 million of them) to those who get paid the same for the same rank and time no matter their gender. Hubby was extremely offended that someone might think there's a disparity there. You would not believe the amount of time the USArmy spends on EEO issues.

As for the gallery info, I follow a gallery on their blog. They put out a catalog quarterly or so. The most recent one has 63 artists in it and 45 of them are female. A few more might be, but they were listed as initials and didn't have portraits with their art.

And +1 to Blansky's post #193.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I see many more female doctors outside of the traditional female oriented specialties than I did a few decades ago. If you have health insurance check out the distribution male/female in the providers directory.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The problem with labor statistics in general is that they don't take into account the significant amount of the labor pool that isn't even polled:
below min wage (common in some states), cheated relative to overtime (routine in many big box operations and delivery services), illegal
or sweatshop, endless hours due to phony duty classification (common both retail and corporate), on and on. This is regardless of gender.
But it also amazes me how many young people just don't want to work. There are jobs begging, and they refuse to do anything that doesn't
resemble a video game, sitting on their butt. When I got out of school I literally knocked on the doors of every industry around, then worked my way up the ladder. Same with art; just networked until I got some serious representation. That was awhile back, and the novelty has long worn off, though I might attempt so more gigs after retirement. It was no different for those with official art degrees. You
start at the bottom. Nobody gives a damn about a piece of paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not saying there isn't a wage gap, btw. But the number being quoted - this 23% difference - is a vast generality based on the total amount earned by all women vs the total amount earned by all men. Once adjusted for # of hours worked and a few other important things, it's closer to 10-15%, possibly less. The same amount of time for the same job, there isn't nearly as much of a disparity. And it absolutely is getting better. A simple search turns up articles written by economists rather than by people with agendas.
The main reason that women earn less is because they are more likely to take time off to have children. I'm certainly not advocating a return to the 50s where that was the main goal of most women. And I'm not advocating that men do all the childrearing (in our house I can only imagine how that would turn out - we have a half-track in the yard already). But the majority of kids spend more time at home with their mothers than with their fathers. And that affects the career choices a women makes as well as her path within any career. Oh, and add the US military (all nearly 3 million of them) to those who get paid the same for the same rank and time no matter their gender. Hubby was extremely offended that someone might think there's a disparity there. You would not believe the amount of time the USArmy spends on EEO issues.

As for the gallery info, I follow a gallery on their blog. They put out a catalog quarterly or so. The most recent one has 63 artists in it and 45 of them are female. A few more might be, but they were listed as initials and didn't have portraits with their art.

And +1 to Blansky's post #193.

"The same amount of time for the same job, there isn't nearly as much of a disparity. And it absolutely is getting better. A simple search turns up articles written by economists rather than by people with agendas.
The main reason that women earn less is because they are more likely to take time off to have children."

And there you have it. It is not discrimination, it is about experience and time on the job. If I had taken six months off work every few years to travel the world then my pay would have been equivalently lower. Some people really need to get over themselves, seriously!

 

[winger]

The problem with labor statistics in general is that they don't take into account the significant amount of the labor pool that isn't even polled:
below min wage (common in some states), cheated relative to overtime (routine in many big box operations and delivery services), illegal
or sweatshop, endless hours due to phony duty classification (common both retail and corporate), on and on. This is regardless of gender.
But it also amazes me how many young people just don't want to work. There are jobs begging, and they refuse to do anything that doesn't
resemble a video game, sitting on their butt. When I got out of school I literally knocked on the doors of every industry around, then worked my way up the ladder. Same with art; just networked until I got some serious representation. That was awhile back, and the novelty has long worn off, though I might attempt so more gigs after retirement. It was no different for those with official art degrees. You
start at the bottom. Nobody gives a damn about a piece of paper.

There are a few people who stand at an intersection near here asking for money because they don't have a job. Each holds a sign saying they don't have a job. Within 50 yards of them are three businesses with "Now Hiring" signs prominently displayed. If you suggest to them that they apply, they scoff. To me that suggests they get more money panhandling than they would working. And this is NOT a wealthy area.

Time out on maternity leave is time that doesn't count towards seniority in many places. I honestly don't remember what it was at the lab, but I think you could maintain your time if you had at least a day per pay period that wasn't leave time. I had Nate after leaving the lab. But many studies have shown that women are more likely to go for jobs with better benefits or more relaxed leave time. When someone works fewer hours, of course they will get less pay.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are a few people who stand at an intersection near here asking for money because they don't have a job. Each holds a sign saying they don't have a job. Within 50 yards of them are three businesses with "Now Hiring" signs prominently displayed. If you suggest to them that they apply, they scoff. To me that suggests they get more money panhandling than they would working. And this is NOT a wealthy area.

In Los Angeles 15 years ago when I was working for a small company of less than 20 people, the owners saw a homeless person regularly panhandle nearby. They offered him a generous salary to be our security guard and a place to live in the building. He told them that he wanted to stay on drugs and the freedom of being homeless since panhandling in a morning and afternoon he could get $500 every day tax free.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here the panhandlers have "benefits". You can't stand on just any street corner. You have to have seniority there, take your turn. And if you're going to be absent, you assign a proxy. Otherwise, somebody gets roughed up after dark. There is also a technique to it. Helps to have a cute puppy, since people will give money to feed them. Or just be honest: the guy with the sign that says, "I won't lie, I need booze" does better than the one who says he's lost the family farm. How much money they take in is hard to say. Some look terrible because they're emaciated from crack. But quite a few others genuinely can't work due to mental health issues. Health care is free for them here, but often they don't show up for their meds. But what amazes me is how they get around. Some of the same one panhandling here in the
winter I've seen panhandling in Telluride in the summer! Likewise our neighborhood anarchists seem to show up in riots on the other side
of the country. Yet aside from these stereotypes, every now and then somebody truly is just down on their luck and needs a break. You
just have to be damn careful not to believe just any story. Some even operate in dispatched teams making some cult guru filthy rich.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Time out on maternity leave is time that doesn't count towards seniority in many places. ...

Time out for maternity here means that engineer's work on the project will need to be picked up by someone else for the next six or so months. Someone else has more of a workload. Schedules won't be slipped to accommodate having one person on leave. So, maternity leave is quite a good benefit women have - I'm not against it because I believe it's valuable for raising children and improving society.

BTW, seniority isn't valued as much as skill here, but that's beside the point.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Seniority can be used against employees when the government want a lower average manpower rate. The ones who are the most senior will get cut to make the government bogey and the are not other assignments available for them in the company. So there is legal age discrimination.

 

[pbromaghin]

Absolutely. Because you've made a subjective judgement call. Otherwise, I and those who think just like me could call any group "intolerant" and shut you down. That is what has been happening in universities (supposedly a place where highly diverse ideas should be presented and questioned). Rather than protest someone, or debate someone, they don't want that person to have a voice anywhere. Ironically, those people are the most intolerant of all.

This is a horrible development. When I was in college in the '70's, it was just starting, but all opinions were at least listened to *before* they were shouted down. It was still considered essential to hear dissenting voices. The idiots on campuses today are afraid to even hear thoughts with which they disagree. They all think THEY are the dissenting voices, and only their voices should be heard. The adults who are running these shows should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[pbromaghin]

In all my many years in art school

This explains a lot.