Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:26 pages and not a lot learned on how to save teenage boys. Just what to complain about. What are the solutions?

I think it’s up to men to solve, not women. We’re busy doing everything else.

I get it. Punching down is hard work.

Women are punching down on men now? Does that mean we are being paid equally?

In the same professions, aren’t we paid equally? I’ve not had a situation where I was paid less than my male colleagues or where they were promoted over me. I’m in the defense industry. Maybe that matters.

But are female pre-school teachers paid the same as male welders? No. But females can be welders too.

No. The pay gap is across the board. The male preschool teacher is statistically making more.

Nope. Not sure where you're getting your information. You're probably just committed to being an oppressed victim, no matter what the evidence bears out.

What evidence?

How about you cite evidence that male preschool teachers with the same qualifications working the same hours make more than female teachers.

I didn't make the claim about pre-school teachers. Why can't you just answer the question and tell us what evidence you have?

Then why don’t you ask the person making the affirmative claim to substantiate it with something other than fee fees. I have a guess…

Are you the one that said this "Nope. Not sure where you're getting your information. You're probably just committed to being an oppressed victim, no matter what the evidence bears out."

If so, I asked YOU for provide the evidence you claim to base your opinion on.

Because you want to confirm your priors. Nope = none of the literature usually making this claim bears the point out once you account for all factors. Usually people without agendas stop making such universal claims (like the pay gap is across the board) when they repeatedly fall apart, unless they are emotionally and ideologically invested in a certain outcome. The tendentious vigor of your inquiry is noted.

OK so you have no evidence, as suspected. The only one emotionally invested in proving a point is you. You are the one who claimed to have evidence ,which you clearly do not have. All I did was ask you to provide it.

Mhmmm, sure. And the "evidence" for the claim posted is showing that men teach in harder-to-staff roles and work more supplemental hours. So not the same work. Curious how that happens so frequently. When "study" after "study" fails to bear the point out, it would suggest that evidence for such broad claims like "the pay gap is across the board" does not exist. You do you, though.

I’m not the PP but the studies I just read out of curiosity did state that the majority of the pay gap was associated with supplemental hours.

However, as suggested by another poster, I read a number of law suits that were settled in favor of the women bc of pay gaps despite same job/same duties or even with the women having a higher level job and higher level duties. So maybe the answer isn’t clear cut either way.

This is a fair and reasonable take, and much less sweeping than other claims. Things always get messy once you get past the agendas and propaganda. A settlement is not always evidence of wrongdoing though; sometimes it's just a cost of doing business for the company. You can always find sensationalized stories and lawsuits:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.639423/gov.uscourts.nysd.639423.1.0.pdf

If you want another study, here is one that suggests that for early childcare workers, women actually outearn men on an hourly basis.

"Although women face pay disparities relative to men in the overall workforce, table 10 suggests that women who are early childhood educators earn more than their male colleagues. Across all early childhood educator populations, women earn an average of $15.33 per hour, compared with men’s
$13.96 per hour. One factor driving this disparity is that a higher share of males are educators coded as child care workers rather than educators coded as preschool teachers. Because child care workers are paid less than preschool teachers, this lowers the average wage among men. Women who work in early care and education earn more than men as well, although the gap is smaller."

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/97676/early_childhood_educator_compensation_final_2.pdf

The pay inequity study that found that Google was underpaying some men doesn’t mean they were underpaying them compared to women. They could’ve been underpaying them based on location meaning they were getting the same pay as somebody in Philly but they were working in New York.

Google equity is based on job, experience, and location. So that wasn’t exactly paying inequity of men versus women.

It just showed that some men were paid less than their peers who could’ve been in the same job, experience, and location.

So you know better than the company itself?

You neither understood the study nor the explanation of the study

Mmhmmm, sure.

I take your surrender.

You're blinkered to the point of hilarity. Keep spinning.

I’m sorry you are too obtuse to understand that the comparison that you literally linked talked about pay disparity based on locality not gender and you didn’t understand it and now you feel a fool and I get it. You are a fool.

Let me help you out since reading seems to be a challenge for you:

"When Google conducted its annual pay equity analysis for 2018, the tech company found something nobody expected: It was underpaying men for doing similar work as women."

"The underpayment — which flips the typical gender pay gap narrative on its head — mostly applied to one group of software engineers."

"She offered an explanation for the relatively large adjustment compared with the prior year: Female engineers got more discretionary funds than men."

"The Washington Post explains that in Google's 2018 study, "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category."

Your schtick is tired, goofy.

Those discretionary funds were compensation for women being previously assigned a lower pay grade (like a GS level) than they deserved, and overperforming relative to their level.

[Anonymous]

What does Scott Galloway say about saving DC Urban Moms and Dads, who seem to be in much worse shape than the teenage boys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:26 pages and not a lot learned on how to save teenage boys. Just what to complain about. What are the solutions?

I think it’s up to men to solve, not women. We’re busy doing everything else.

I get it. Punching down is hard work.

Women are punching down on men now? Does that mean we are being paid equally?

In the same professions, aren’t we paid equally? I’ve not had a situation where I was paid less than my male colleagues or where they were promoted over me. I’m in the defense industry. Maybe that matters.

But are female pre-school teachers paid the same as male welders? No. But females can be welders too.

No. The pay gap is across the board. The male preschool teacher is statistically making more.

Nope. Not sure where you're getting your information. You're probably just committed to being an oppressed victim, no matter what the evidence bears out.

What evidence?

How about you cite evidence that male preschool teachers with the same qualifications working the same hours make more than female teachers.

I didn't make the claim about pre-school teachers. Why can't you just answer the question and tell us what evidence you have?

Then why don’t you ask the person making the affirmative claim to substantiate it with something other than fee fees. I have a guess…

Are you the one that said this "Nope. Not sure where you're getting your information. You're probably just committed to being an oppressed victim, no matter what the evidence bears out."

If so, I asked YOU for provide the evidence you claim to base your opinion on.

Because you want to confirm your priors. Nope = none of the literature usually making this claim bears the point out once you account for all factors. Usually people without agendas stop making such universal claims (like the pay gap is across the board) when they repeatedly fall apart, unless they are emotionally and ideologically invested in a certain outcome. The tendentious vigor of your inquiry is noted.

OK so you have no evidence, as suspected. The only one emotionally invested in proving a point is you. You are the one who claimed to have evidence ,which you clearly do not have. All I did was ask you to provide it.

Mhmmm, sure. And the "evidence" for the claim posted is showing that men teach in harder-to-staff roles and work more supplemental hours. So not the same work. Curious how that happens so frequently. When "study" after "study" fails to bear the point out, it would suggest that evidence for such broad claims like "the pay gap is across the board" does not exist. You do you, though.

I’m not the PP but the studies I just read out of curiosity did state that the majority of the pay gap was associated with supplemental hours.

However, as suggested by another poster, I read a number of law suits that were settled in favor of the women bc of pay gaps despite same job/same duties or even with the women having a higher level job and higher level duties. So maybe the answer isn’t clear cut either way.

This is a fair and reasonable take, and much less sweeping than other claims. Things always get messy once you get past the agendas and propaganda. A settlement is not always evidence of wrongdoing though; sometimes it's just a cost of doing business for the company. You can always find sensationalized stories and lawsuits:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.639423/gov.uscourts.nysd.639423.1.0.pdf

If you want another study, here is one that suggests that for early childcare workers, women actually outearn men on an hourly basis.

"Although women face pay disparities relative to men in the overall workforce, table 10 suggests that women who are early childhood educators earn more than their male colleagues. Across all early childhood educator populations, women earn an average of $15.33 per hour, compared with men’s
$13.96 per hour. One factor driving this disparity is that a higher share of males are educators coded as child care workers rather than educators coded as preschool teachers. Because child care workers are paid less than preschool teachers, this lowers the average wage among men. Women who work in early care and education earn more than men as well, although the gap is smaller."

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/97676/early_childhood_educator_compensation_final_2.pdf

The pay inequity study that found that Google was underpaying some men doesn’t mean they were underpaying them compared to women. They could’ve been underpaying them based on location meaning they were getting the same pay as somebody in Philly but they were working in New York.

Google equity is based on job, experience, and location. So that wasn’t exactly paying inequity of men versus women.

It just showed that some men were paid less than their peers who could’ve been in the same job, experience, and location.

So you know better than the company itself?

You neither understood the study nor the explanation of the study

Mmhmmm, sure.

I take your surrender.

You're blinkered to the point of hilarity. Keep spinning.

I’m sorry you are too obtuse to understand that the comparison that you literally linked talked about pay disparity based on locality not gender and you didn’t understand it and now you feel a fool and I get it. You are a fool.

Let me help you out since reading seems to be a challenge for you:

"When Google conducted its annual pay equity analysis for 2018, the tech company found something nobody expected: It was underpaying men for doing similar work as women."

"The underpayment — which flips the typical gender pay gap narrative on its head — mostly applied to one group of software engineers."

"She offered an explanation for the relatively large adjustment compared with the prior year: Female engineers got more discretionary funds than men."

"The Washington Post explains that in Google's 2018 study, "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category."

Your schtick is tired, goofy.

Those discretionary funds were compensation for women being previously assigned a lower pay grade (like a GS level) than they deserved, and overperforming relative to their level.

Mad = bad. Woman = good. We get it. Give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting takes on boys and technology. I think he’s right about a lot but off on some things but I think his ideas are worth discussing. Are we failing boy? Have we put girls ahead of boys or have women just put their heads down and figured it out?

Excerpt:

“ …his stats tell a worrying story. In 1950, 50 per cent of men under 30 had children; now it’s 21 per cent (and 60 per cent of young men aged 18-24 still live with their parents). The downstream effects are startling: 1 in 3 men under 30 hasn’t had sex in the past year; 45 per cent of men aged 18-25 have never approached a woman in person (as opposed to online) to ask them on a date.

“No cohort has fallen further, faster than young men,” he asserts. “You ask me about the [Tommy Robinson] march in London? History shows us fascism breeds among sad, lonely, badly educated males who are most susceptible to conspiracy theories. Trump got elected because we have a young man problem. And you want to know why his vote went up among women over 45? I believe they are concerned mothers.”

“It begins with education. Boys’ slower brain development (the male prefrontal cortex matures later than in girls) means they quickly fall behind girls at school. What’s more, higher education is now prohibitively expensive, while manual jobs have disappeared due to globalisation and AI. Even for those working, inflation has devalued wages and housing is increasingly unaffordable.

The social contract is broken,” he says. “The promise that working hard and following the rules means your life will be better than for previous generations is gone. In that landscape of despair, the temptations offered by godlike technology, porn, gambling and conspiracy theories can be irresistible.”

Full article.

https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/parenting/article/scott-galloway-how-save-teenage-boys-gckntn7t9

Sorry, but this is BS.

Yea, technology changed. Those changes have also made it easier than ever to get ahead. Our grandparents would have killed for the opportunities we have now.

I became a single mom in 2019 with zero job skills. The career I had gone to college for was gone, and I had been a SAHM for so long my resume was worthless. I figured out what jobs had growth potential, got an entry-level position making minimum wage, and over 5 years worked my way up to making 6 figures. All while raising kids. Every free moment I had was spent on free education (podcasts + YouTube), and any extra money I made went to career development.

It was hard. Was it as hard as our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had it? Absolutely not. There were zero career opportunities for women then, and being a single mom meant poverty for life.

I just don't have much empathy for young men who want to complain life is hard when they've been handed literally every advantage and have the entire Internet, and all the free education that comes along with it, in their pockets. Mr. Beast was making several times more money than his parents by the time he was a teenager. Is every boy going to be Mr Beast? No. But if you work hard and take the time to learn the system, you can succeed.

There’s also the fact that this has not been the case for young Black and Hispanic men long before it was an issue for White ones. Where was the concern twenty years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting takes on boys and technology. I think he’s right about a lot but off on some things but I think his ideas are worth discussing. Are we failing boy? Have we put girls ahead of boys or have women just put their heads down and figured it out?

Excerpt:

“ …his stats tell a worrying story. In 1950, 50 per cent of men under 30 had children; now it’s 21 per cent (and 60 per cent of young men aged 18-24 still live with their parents). The downstream effects are startling: 1 in 3 men under 30 hasn’t had sex in the past year; 45 per cent of men aged 18-25 have never approached a woman in person (as opposed to online) to ask them on a date.

“No cohort has fallen further, faster than young men,” he asserts. “You ask me about the [Tommy Robinson] march in London? History shows us fascism breeds among sad, lonely, badly educated males who are most susceptible to conspiracy theories. Trump got elected because we have a young man problem. And you want to know why his vote went up among women over 45? I believe they are concerned mothers.”

“It begins with education. Boys’ slower brain development (the male prefrontal cortex matures later than in girls) means they quickly fall behind girls at school. What’s more, higher education is now prohibitively expensive, while manual jobs have disappeared due to globalisation and AI. Even for those working, inflation has devalued wages and housing is increasingly unaffordable.

The social contract is broken,” he says. “The promise that working hard and following the rules means your life will be better than for previous generations is gone. In that landscape of despair, the temptations offered by godlike technology, porn, gambling and conspiracy theories can be irresistible.”

Full article.

https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/parenting/article/scott-galloway-how-save-teenage-boys-gckntn7t9

Sorry, but this is BS.

Yea, technology changed. Those changes have also made it easier than ever to get ahead. Our grandparents would have killed for the opportunities we have now.

I became a single mom in 2019 with zero job skills. The career I had gone to college for was gone, and I had been a SAHM for so long my resume was worthless. I figured out what jobs had growth potential, got an entry-level position making minimum wage, and over 5 years worked my way up to making 6 figures. All while raising kids. Every free moment I had was spent on free education (podcasts + YouTube), and any extra money I made went to career development.

It was hard. Was it as hard as our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had it? Absolutely not. There were zero career opportunities for women then, and being a single mom meant poverty for life.

I just don't have much empathy for young men who want to complain life is hard when they've been handed literally every advantage and have the entire Internet, and all the free education that comes along with it, in their pockets. Mr. Beast was making several times more money than his parents by the time he was a teenager. Is every boy going to be Mr Beast? No. But if you work hard and take the time to learn the system, you can succeed.

There’s also the fact that this has not been the case for young Black and Hispanic men long before it was an issue for White ones. Where was the concern twenty years ago?

There were so few of them nobody noticed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

I'm a former teacher and I would love to hear about how school has been modified to meet girls' needs at the detriment to boys. And a warning to you (since I anticipate a non answer or a lie)...everyone here went to school K-12 and remembers what it was like. If anything, schooling had a much higher standard for discipline and rote memorization. Hence, the magnet options like Arlington Traditional School. But please, enlighten us all.

I agree with you, but also, why did the girls start doing so much better at school and at starting at young ages, before their own motivations could play a role? It is surprising how quickly it happened though like you said school was much stricter and had higher expectations, and boys succeeded.

This is a new body of research, but one hypothesis is gender bias in grading and the compounding effects thereof. Several studies document/discuss the hypothesis grading bias in favor of girls in schooling. Others are now starting to delve into how this compounds over time. It is still a relatively new body of literature, so we will see if it sticks.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775718307714?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X22002001

https://economics.uq.edu.au/article/2021/12/teacher-gender-bias-has-lasting-effects-on-student-marks-and-study-choices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just Darwinism and natural selection at work. One hundred years ago a woman needed a husband to have any sort of freedom. Now women can do it on their own and don't need men. Now the men who bring nothing to the table aren't being picked as they would have been in the past.

Women don't need relationships to be happy and men do. Women are no longer responsible for men's happiness and they haven't figured out how to fix it themselves.

It’s actually the complete opposite of natural selection because it’s largely manmade forces/polices that are conspiring against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Darwinism and natural selection at work. One hundred years ago a woman needed a husband to have any sort of freedom. Now women can do it on their own and don't need men. Now the men who bring nothing to the table aren't being picked as they would have been in the past.

Women don't need relationships to be happy and men do. Women are no longer responsible for men's happiness and they haven't figured out how to fix it themselves.

It’s actually the complete opposite of natural selection because it’s largely manmade forces/polices that are conspiring against them.

Conspiring against whom? Men? You mean giving women equal rights and protections under the law? Yeah, how horrible for men.

[Anonymous]

Men generally hate women and are now being hoisted by their own petard. Suck it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Darwinism and natural selection at work. One hundred years ago a woman needed a husband to have any sort of freedom. Now women can do it on their own and don't need men. Now the men who bring nothing to the table aren't being picked as they would have been in the past.

Women don't need relationships to be happy and men do. Women are no longer responsible for men's happiness and they haven't figured out how to fix it themselves.

It’s actually the complete opposite of natural selection because it’s largely manmade forces/polices that are conspiring against them.

Conspiring against whom? Men? You mean giving women equal rights and protections under the law? Yeah, how horrible for men.

Yes, certainly, but these same rights extend to trans women, every bit as much as to all women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just Darwinism and natural selection at work. One hundred years ago a woman needed a husband to have any sort of freedom. Now women can do it on their own and don't need men. Now the men who bring nothing to the table aren't being picked as they would have been in the past.

Women don't need relationships to be happy and men do. Women are no longer responsible for men's happiness and they haven't figured out how to fix it themselves.

It’s actually the complete opposite of natural selection because it’s largely manmade forces/polices that are conspiring against them.

Conspiring against whom? Men? You mean giving women equal rights and protections under the law? Yeah, how horrible for men.

Yes, certainly, but these same rights extend to trans women, every bit as much as to all women.

You're a pathetic troll. There is no sense is trying to have a serious conversation with someone like you.

[Anonymous]

Mothers of boys have become adept at raising demure, sensitive, feminist boys, who grow up into adult males, who no woman would ever want to marry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mothers of boys have become adept at raising demure, sensitive, feminist boys, who grow up into adult males, who no woman would ever want to marry.

hahahahaha you sound so desperate. It's kind of hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:26 pages and not a lot learned on how to save teenage boys. Just what to complain about. What are the solutions?

I think it’s up to men to solve, not women. We’re busy doing everything else.

I get it. Punching down is hard work.

Women are punching down on men now? Does that mean we are being paid equally?

In the same professions, aren’t we paid equally? I’ve not had a situation where I was paid less than my male colleagues or where they were promoted over me. I’m in the defense industry. Maybe that matters.

But are female pre-school teachers paid the same as male welders? No. But females can be welders too.

No. The pay gap is across the board. The male preschool teacher is statistically making more.

Nope. Not sure where you're getting your information. You're probably just committed to being an oppressed victim, no matter what the evidence bears out.

What evidence?

How about you cite evidence that male preschool teachers with the same qualifications working the same hours make more than female teachers.

I didn't make the claim about pre-school teachers. Why can't you just answer the question and tell us what evidence you have?

Then why don’t you ask the person making the affirmative claim to substantiate it with something other than fee fees. I have a guess…

Are you the one that said this "Nope. Not sure where you're getting your information. You're probably just committed to being an oppressed victim, no matter what the evidence bears out."

If so, I asked YOU for provide the evidence you claim to base your opinion on.

Because you want to confirm your priors. Nope = none of the literature usually making this claim bears the point out once you account for all factors. Usually people without agendas stop making such universal claims (like the pay gap is across the board) when they repeatedly fall apart, unless they are emotionally and ideologically invested in a certain outcome. The tendentious vigor of your inquiry is noted.

OK so you have no evidence, as suspected. The only one emotionally invested in proving a point is you. You are the one who claimed to have evidence ,which you clearly do not have. All I did was ask you to provide it.

Mhmmm, sure. And the "evidence" for the claim posted is showing that men teach in harder-to-staff roles and work more supplemental hours. So not the same work. Curious how that happens so frequently. When "study" after "study" fails to bear the point out, it would suggest that evidence for such broad claims like "the pay gap is across the board" does not exist. You do you, though.

I’m not the PP but the studies I just read out of curiosity did state that the majority of the pay gap was associated with supplemental hours.

However, as suggested by another poster, I read a number of law suits that were settled in favor of the women bc of pay gaps despite same job/same duties or even with the women having a higher level job and higher level duties. So maybe the answer isn’t clear cut either way.

This is a fair and reasonable take, and much less sweeping than other claims. Things always get messy once you get past the agendas and propaganda. A settlement is not always evidence of wrongdoing though; sometimes it's just a cost of doing business for the company. You can always find sensationalized stories and lawsuits:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.639423/gov.uscourts.nysd.639423.1.0.pdf

If you want another study, here is one that suggests that for early childcare workers, women actually outearn men on an hourly basis.

"Although women face pay disparities relative to men in the overall workforce, table 10 suggests that women who are early childhood educators earn more than their male colleagues. Across all early childhood educator populations, women earn an average of $15.33 per hour, compared with men’s
$13.96 per hour. One factor driving this disparity is that a higher share of males are educators coded as child care workers rather than educators coded as preschool teachers. Because child care workers are paid less than preschool teachers, this lowers the average wage among men. Women who work in early care and education earn more than men as well, although the gap is smaller."

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/97676/early_childhood_educator_compensation_final_2.pdf

The pay inequity study that found that Google was underpaying some men doesn’t mean they were underpaying them compared to women. They could’ve been underpaying them based on location meaning they were getting the same pay as somebody in Philly but they were working in New York.

Google equity is based on job, experience, and location. So that wasn’t exactly paying inequity of men versus women.

It just showed that some men were paid less than their peers who could’ve been in the same job, experience, and location.

So you know better than the company itself?

You neither understood the study nor the explanation of the study

Mmhmmm, sure.

I take your surrender.

You're blinkered to the point of hilarity. Keep spinning.

I’m sorry you are too obtuse to understand that the comparison that you literally linked talked about pay disparity based on locality not gender and you didn’t understand it and now you feel a fool and I get it. You are a fool.

Let me help you out since reading seems to be a challenge for you:

"When Google conducted its annual pay equity analysis for 2018, the tech company found something nobody expected: It was underpaying men for doing similar work as women."

"The underpayment — which flips the typical gender pay gap narrative on its head — mostly applied to one group of software engineers."

"She offered an explanation for the relatively large adjustment compared with the prior year: Female engineers got more discretionary funds than men."

"The Washington Post explains that in Google's 2018 study, "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category."

Your schtick is tired, goofy.

Those discretionary funds were compensation for women being previously assigned a lower pay grade (like a GS level) than they deserved, and overperforming relative to their level.

The pay of the undercompensated male Level 4 software engineers was compared to that of their peers within the same job, level, location, and performance ratings and 10000 were found to be underpaid (8000 men and 2000 women). They were not necessarily paid less than women, they were paid less based on their job, level, location and performance rating.

The lawsuit was looking to see if there were underpaid women, there were 2000 underpaid women. 20% of the underpaid staff were women. 14% of the staff are women. But they also found that there was a big pay discrepancy of L4 engineers in general and they had to remedy that.

[Anonymous]

It’s because men expected women to work and parent their kids and manage the house at the same level. The fathers and their sons never picked up the slack, and society didn’t adapt to two earner households to make up the difference, and things fell apart.