Is Gender Studies really a real science?

Anyways, women are doing much better than men in school atm and if the trend continues, women will make more that men on average in the future.

 

So you have the proof to show it never happens, please provide it.

 

History does not support your conclusion .. take the U.S. female football team, they are far more successful than the men's team and have a higher revenue stream - projected $17 million for the women compared to $5 million for the men, that is a $5.2 million surplus for the women compared to a $1 million loss for the men, and yet the women are paid significantly less .. Can you give a valid answer to why that is?

 

well since there are only two genders, there isn't really. any other 'thing' loosely associated with gender would be more appropriately studied by psych students.

 

I'm not sure it's strictly correct to say that India and China don't have gender equality. India (and Pakistan) have had female leaders for longer than the west has, for example. But I agree on the STEM thing. I know for fact that Asian parents don't like their kids taking 'vanity' courses, because it doesn't help their child earn a reasonable living. They feel very strongly that while the kid is under their care, it's their job to ensure the kid is qualified for something lucrative and in high demand. They basically say to their kids "you get the engineering/medical/law degree first, then you can study 17thC French poetry on your own dime". In places where there is no decent welfare, it's a reasonable thing for parents to do.

The fact that they still do it when living in the west is interesting, though. There is no longer a pressing need to ensure a high income, but they still can't abide the thought of all that time, money, and effort, going into something that has no practical application. They feel it's the height of self-indulgent luxury to pursue such things, and best left to spoilt royalty etc.

 

Fugazi, then here is the studying you're looking for of discrimination between identically qualified candidates, that's based on gender.

Fugazi.

Your Welcome.

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

 

Demand and supply.

Women's football does not bring in the kind of ratings that men's football, infact it is not even close.

If we see the footballers as producers and the product they produce is jerseys, tickets, tv-deals, sponsorships, season subscriptions, merchandising and what-have-you, the demand for products of men's football are much higher than the demand for those of women's football.

Also, I would believe that male footballers work more than female footballers. Since men's football is much more lucrative, there are tons of competitions, friendlies, charity-games, pre-season games and qualifiers for the men, whereas for the women not so much.

Did you sleep tbrough tne whole class on "supply and demand" in 8th grade or what?

 

Nonetheless, football salaries are, pretty much, entirely based on revenues. As mentioned in previous post this means advertising, tv-deals, merchandising, ticket-sales etc. The men bring in more money to their clubs than do their female counterparts.

Consumers prefer men's football for whatever reason there might be. If it is sexism or not, I do not care to comment on. I think that men's football is more entertaining than women's and that is why I watch it, not because it happens to be men who "produce" it. Most women who are into football prefer to watch men's football too. If women are to be paid the same they have to convince fans and sponsors they are just as entertaining. Simple as that.

How much do Paralympic athletes make in comparison to Olympic athletes? How much do male pornstars make in comparison to female pornstars?

Also note that the NWSL is actually very well-regarded amongst female footballers and one of (if not the) the best and most well-paying leagues out there. A league that most female pros dream of playing in. So the success of American female football actually does pay off.

Compare this to the MLS. The league is not at all attractive for the best and most well-known players (unless they are past their peak) and most football fans are not too interested at all in watching a game of that league.

 

As I said my answer remains the same.

However .. Your article has been rebuked;

https://othersociologist.com/2015/04/16/myth-about-women-in-science/
https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/michael-brownstein-on-williams-and-ceci/
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2015/04/14/yet-more-academic-hiring-21-bias-in-favor-of-women/

Interesting that the "research" you cite is a paper study and not a real world one.

 

Wrong, woman's football (soccer) has a higher rating than mens football, in all areas. The revenue includes "jerseys, tickets, tv-deals, sponsorships, season subscriptions, merchandising and what-have-you" and is higher for the woman's football than the mens.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/men-women-us-soccer-player-salaries-2016-4?r=US&IR=T

 

Actually according to the report by the United States Soccer Federation, the woman's team earned a far greater revenue than the mens team.

 

They are entertainers and are paid after how much they bring in. Of course US' male team will earn more in World Ciup bonuses that the female do for theirs. The males World Cup is the most watched tv-broadcast worldwide!

Flippen heck how hard can it be to understand this?

That is simply not true because if it was, women would earn more. The average consumer of football prefers men's football; all the money for broadcasters, sponsors and investors is thus to be found in men's football.

 

PS.With your logic it would be sexist and unfair that the girl who flips burgers at Burger King earns less than the male chef working at the five star hotel in the same area; "muh, both are making food! It must be because she is a she. Yes that's it! Patriarchy! Rooooooooar."

 

Then I suggest you bring it up with the United States Soccer Federation as it is their figures, not mine. - http://resources.ussoccer.com/images/160127-AGM-PDF-FINAL.pdf pages 68 & 71

Can't even say that the mens team have worked more

 

I don't have any backing for this but I have been told by people in the Guidance field that Gender Studies is in fact a somewhat in demand major by Human Resources depts. and that does make sense. So, yes, it is a real major and it does have actual utility

 

Does not matter. Footballers are not really paid after how much they work, but rarher based on how much they bring in to their employer(in this case the FA). Consumers prefer men's football and that is just the way it is. A (men's) friendly between US and, say, Mexico will bring in more revenues than that of a female equivalence. It is not the footballing industry that is sexist, if anything it is the consumer who is sexist in their preverence for men's football.

Obviously, a Hollywood actress(f) will make more than an actor(m) in the Bulgarian film industry. With the same logic, we can - by comparing these two - conclude that women in the film industry make more than the men and start crying over the inequality. Lol.

Demand and supply ffs! Demand and supply.

All the people I know prefer Hollywood films over anything not because they are Amerocentric racists, but simply because they happen to enjoy it more. All the people I know who are into football (both men and women) prefer men's football. For women to earn the same amount as the men, they have to convince the customer they are just as entertaining as the men.

 

Then by your own standard the female team should be paid more than the mens team as they are actually bringing in more net profit than the mens team, who are making a loss .. you simply cannot judge it on a single game, it has to be over the extent of the season and as the figures show the women bring in revenue that far exceeds the men, a trend that is predicted not to change over the forth coming years.

 

I doubt it. Men's football is not very popular in the US, but fact is men's football is the single most popular sport on the planet. US are members of CONCACAF, together with Central American countries where football is huge. They partivipate in thenWorld Cup which is huge. It is pretty much obvious men's football bring in more than women's football.

Throughout an entire season of the women's EPL, what is the total attendence? Probably below 70 000, maybe even lower than 50 000. In the EPL the total attendence is probably close to 20 million. Sh-tloads of revenues in other words and if we count in the livingroom-watchers EPL probably brings in billions of views whereas women are probably not even close to 100k.

Obviously, broadcasters, sponsors and investors will be much more drawn to men's football, because that just happens to be where the money is.

It is exactly the same with the NBA vs the WNBA; men bring in more revenues which means more internal and external money will be pushed into the industry.

I am a huge fan of football and watch it alot. I have tried watching women's football, both Swedish league and a few World Cup games and it just is not as entertaining.

How does the pay-differences look in more revenue-equal soorts like tennis and high jump?

 

What I find really surprising is that you are asserting that the male football team deserve higher pay because they are "more" popular and/or watched more, despite the fact that they are losing money, by that logic if you had $1 mill to invest and you could invest in one of two teams ie mens football or womens football, you would choose the mens even though it would create a loss each year for you based on the idea that mens football is more popular .. WTF where as you would not invest in womens football, even though it would make you a nett profit every year, because it isn't as popular

 

Never said ther deserve it. Athletes should obviously not be paid much money at all, but it just happens to be there is a HUGE demand for their services, so. Yeah. Guess they do.

They are mostly being paid based on how popular they are. No matter if Leicester won the EPL last season and Chelsea finished 10th, Chelsea will still be able to pay more for players, bring in more sponsors and sell more tickets and merchandise because they are a bigger and more popular franchise.

Men's football always bring in more money. No matter how you look at it.

PS. Men's football is so much more than the USA's national team.

 

I provided you with the actual figures, and they clearly show that the womens team have a higher revenue stream then the mens.

 

I am not in the mood of reading the report right now, but I am certain your conclusion is a gigantic pile of poop.

 

not my conclusions, read the report and see for yourself.

 

So Fugazi, you're using the opinions of three bloggers to dispute the results of a scientific study from no less than The National Academy of Science-lol.

Fugazi, do you have evidence from a scientific study that found women are discriminated against in STEM?

and Fugazi, a blog is not a scientific study.

 

https://othersociologist.com/2015/04...en-in-science/ - Written by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos, an Australian researcher with a PhD in Sociology who works with the Australian Academy of Science, she is also an Adjunct Research Fellow with Swinburne University.

https://feministphilosophers.wordpre...iams-and-ceci/ - Written by Michael S. Brownstein, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, CUNY/John Jay College of Criminal Justice

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2...avor-of-women/ - Written by Chad Orzel, Associate Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Union College in Schenectady, NY.

Pretty sure they all qualify to give reviews on the research, and BTW please do point out where I state anything about "women are discriminated against in STEM" .. nice try on attempting to move the goalposts.

Furthermore Wendy Williams isn't exactly an unknown, she founded the Cornell Institute for Women in Science (which she also now directs), It doesn't seem out of the question that when the woman from the Cornell institute for women in science asks you to evaluate hypothetical people that it is going to have something to do with sex bias.

Furthermore I have not actually disputed the research, I have merely pointed out that there are scientists who are questioning the methodology of it.

The research itself was paper research, there were no actual interviews conducted, and this is where subconscious biases are much more likely to surface, the fact that they said a candidate was the best for the job does not mean they would have been hired after a fact-to-face interview, and as such while the research is certainly interesting it doesn't render other research into gender bias moot.