Hacker News Reader

Comment by augbog | Hacker News Reader

I would assume if someone did gap analysis they would factor that in. It isn't about the wholistic are women making more or less than men. Rather it's the equality of are women who are the same role of men making the same. There shouldn't be a difference there.

View on HN

This analysis is continuously being done. You can find it for your country easily. In most developed countries a ~5% gap exists. This is usually attributed to men being more aggressive in negotiations.

I’d also factor in maternity, too. I believe research shows that women’s salaries lag significantly after they give birth, even if they take no time off.

Maybe.

Aren't there laws that prevent discrimination on gender and race pretty much in every first-world country? That would make it illegal to pay a woman less for the same job.

If you consider jobs where the title is the same but the professional works B2B, maybe women are less likely to ask for a better pay? That's why pink razors cost more, after all.

Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money, same thing for BBC journalists who demanded the same pay even though they got 10% share compared to their male colleague.

There are so many variables...

> Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money

I think this is a great example! The US women's soccer team is better than the men's but they make a fraction of the money. It's not their fault that sports have a sexist history that influences viewership, ad revenue, and ultimately their salaries.

It's not "sexist history", it's just that men are better at (almost all) sports. Male football is simply more exciting to watch (I imagine, for broader audiences... it's boring to me, in general). For modeling, it's the reverse.

How is men’s soccer more exciting to watch rather than woman’s soccer? It’s literally people kicking a ball around. Does the ball explode if you are a man and kicking it?

lol no, but the men kick the ball harder?

Well, I can tell the difference. Men look more aggressive and professional overall. I mean, the US women national team lost to kids etc, so you tell me.

We have some women teams here in Spain, and while there's some movement in the league honestly it feels... like watching amateurish football. I guess they need time to catch on, but meanwhile it's not very appealing.

Yes, the ball does explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr1KB4Csp00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5v4RvbjRqY

There was a time when women weren't allowed to play professional soccer. It can't not have a sexist history.

the sexist history is that people prefer watching better athletes.

Women can be just as athletic as men, and can easily beat them in many sports. It just depends on the sport. If the sport requires upper-body strength, forget it: men will always have a huge advantage here. But if upper-body strength is no help, and lower-body strength and endurance are important, women can do better. Off the top of my head, I'd point to endurance running: women have longer legs proportionally, and more fat reserves, and don't have to waste a lot of energy carrying around a lot of chest/arm muscles and bigger upper-body bones. They can also do well in downhill skiing, bicycling, etc.

Also, over in Tennessee, the UT women's basketball team has been much, much more popular for decades now than the men's team ever was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com