Iceland’s first full-day women’s strike in 48 years aims to close pay gap : europe

[-] 0x815@feddit.de 38 points 1 year ago

For those interested, this year's Nobel Prize for Economics has been awarded to economic historian Claudia Goldin at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, “for having advanced our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes”.

Goldin mined 200 years of data to show that greater economic growth did not lead to wage parity, nor to more women in the workplace.

Goldin’s work has helped to explain why women have been under-represented in the labour market for at least the past two centuries, and why even today they continue to earn less than men on average (by around 13%, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

Although such inequalities are widely recognized, they present a puzzle for economic models because they represent not just a potential injustice, but also what economists call a market inefficiency. Women seem to be both under-utilized and under-incentivized in the labour force, even though those in high-income countries typically now have a higher educational level than do men.

[-] taladar@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago

Women seem to be both under-utilized and under-incentivized in the labour force, even though those in high-income countries typically now have a higher educational level than do men.

Maybe turn that around then. Why are more men stupid/uneducated enough to enter the labour force only to be exploited by their employers for little gain in areas of life that matter? Or alternatively, why do men not have the opportunity to avoid the labour force even if they do recognize it is not to their advantage to enter it?

Obviously that is a bit nonsensical too but maybe the inherent assumption that it is good thing to spend a large percentage of your time labouring should be questioned if we want to answer questions like that.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah I mean it wasn't 200 years ago that women stayed at home and provided huge amounts of value to the family. All that real-life value is being ignored so that we can ask why they weren't working for someone else instead?

What the fuck.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Although such inequalities are widely recognized, they present a puzzle for economic models because they represent not just a potential injustice, but also what economists call a market inefficiency.

I am always fascinated, that each time the neoclassical school of economics proves to be false, they all act like thats a totally new and singular unexpected thing, as if this hasn't been proved time and time again for all sorts of issues..

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

market inefficiency

Don't get me wrong - people doing this kind of research and building up the data to prove the reality is a good thing, but the absurdity of turning to capitalism to resolve patriarchy is just much..

It's like the flip side of class reductionism - "only war is the gender war" - hey capitalists, look at this untapped resource, if you just exploit women 13% less, you can make all this extra profit!

And while I completely support this strike, I wish they too would look at the bigger picture.

The reality is that all these systems (capitalism and classism, sexism, racism, ableism, queerphobia, and so on) are interconnected and inseparable, they serve each other in many ways, and must all be abolished for us to have anything resembling a just society.

[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 37 points 1 year ago

Full transparency would be good. No one should fear to disclose how much they make. The boomer Maxim of 'it's nobodies business how much I make' is a bit of a false modesty.

If you earn to little, wouldn't you like to know, and if you feel like you eraan to much, you probably do.

[-] PeutMieuxFaire@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

The first one 48 years ago : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Icelandic_women's_strike

On 24 October 1975, Icelandic women went on strike for the day to "demonstrate the indispensable work of women for Iceland’s economy and society" and to "protest wage discrepancy and unfair employment practices". It was then publicized domestically as Women's Day Off (Kvennafrídagurinn). Participants, led by women's organizations, did not go to their paid jobs and did not do any housework or child-rearing for the whole day. Ninety percent of Iceland's female population participated in the strike. Iceland's parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal pay the following year.

It has apparently become necessary to do it a second time…

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 9 points 1 year ago

Once every 50 years, not too shabby.

Too bad it becomes much harder to coordinate such strikes in larger nations, they would otherwise be extremely effective. No country could withstand half its population going on strike.

[-] autotldr 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Tens of thousands of women and non-binary people across Iceland, including the prime minister, are expected to stop work – both paid and unpaid – on Tuesday in the first strike of its kind in nearly half a century.

Organisers hope the women’s strike – whose confirmed participants include fishing industry workers, teachers, nurses and the PM, Katrín Jakobsdóttir – will bring society to a standstill to draw attention to the country’s ongoing gender pay gap and widespread gender-based and sexual violence.

Despite being considered a global leader on gender equality, topping the 2023 World Economic Forum’s global gender gap rankings for the 14th consecutive year, in some professions Icelandic women still earn 21% less than men, and more than 40% of women have experienced gender-based or sexual violence.

Women and non-binary people across the country are urged not to do any paid or unpaid work on Tuesday, including domestic tasks at home, “to demonstrate the importance of their contribution to society”.

The strike is calling for the gender pay gap to be closed by publishing the wages of workers in female-dominant professions, and for action against gender-based and sexual violence, with more focus on the perpetrators.

Despite the #MeToo movement and various others demanding equality in Iceland over recent years, she said women could not count on the justice system when it came to sexually violent crimes.

The original article contains 733 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] FaizalR@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Asking from third world countries, there is a gap between genders?

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Yes, but we are also seeing reverse gender pay gaps emerge, too, in locations where there are many highly paid, highly educated workers.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/28/young-women-are-out-earning-young-men-in-several-u-s-cities/

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Exceptions to the rule aren't "reverse rule".. 🤦‍♀️

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't know what you consider "third world", but I've picked some examples from all over the world, I'm sure you could easily find the relevant information for your own country, and spoiler alert: there will be a pay gap

https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/stories/op-ed/2022/09/the-gender-pay-gap-hard-truths-and-actions-needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_China#Workplace_inequality

https://borgenproject.org/gender-wage-gap-in-egypt

https://borgenproject.org/gender-wage-gap-in-kenya

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/financial-advisor-views/the-long-term-impact-of-gender-pay-disparity

https://www.statista.com/statistics/803761/argentina-gender-gap-labor-market-category

https://www.industriall-union.org/brazil-enacts-law-to-ensure-equal-pay-for-women-and-men

[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, and it’s substantial.

[-] 0x815@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

It's huge in general but varies from country to country

Just a note: I don't know what others say and what the mods prefer here, but I guess they'd agree there is no such thing as a "third world country". Let's call the continent or so and let us there be in one world :-)

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

As someone from a third world country living in a first world country, yeah the difference is still there and depending on where you are in the third world, it's not decreasing.

[-] Turun@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

I think it's mostly the term that is being criticised. It originated from the capitalist/communist/irrelevant categorization of countries during the cold war. As such it does not actually describe much. No one would call Russia a second world country. The definition and colloquial use has diverged.

The term developing country is in my opinion much more descriptive.

[-] yeather@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Nah man there’s still third world countries for sure. Even second world is still relevant for now.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

Third world country used to mean a country that wasn't on the side of either the US or the USSR during the Cold War. Not sure what it means now.

[-] apis@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

In regular parlance it very quickly came to mean countries that are very underdeveloped, with high levels of poverty, simply because this tended to map quite closely to non-alignment.

Unless you're reading something about cold war geopolitics, most use of the term takes this casual meaning, though you can usually get confirmation of what is meant from context.

I don't see it used as much as in the past.

[-] yeather@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

First world countries are developed on an industrial level and a cultural level for personal liberties and democracy. The US, most of Europe, Japan, etc. are all first world countries. Second world are developed industrialy but not so democratically. China and Russia are good examples. Third world countries are those underdeveloped industrially and democratically. Most of Africa and countries in turmoil like Venezuela are good examples of third world countries.

[-] Turun@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

This is how it is used colloquially (though I have never heard the term second world country), but goes contra to the actual definition of the word.

I much prefer the term developing country, because it conveys what you actually want to describe in the first place.

[-] yeather@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Not really. The easily quotable figure is 84% but in reality it doesn’t take into account important differences in profession, qualifications, type of employer, seniority, hours worked or many other things that go into deciding compensation. The only thing the gender pay gap really shows is that men hold more high paying jobs than women, or have worked in industries for longer and therefore have more compensation.

[-] 0x815@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The gender pay gap has narrowed over the recent decades, at least in the EU and the US, but it still exists. And this is also true for the adjusted pay gap, taking into account education, seniority, etc.

In addition, women are overly represented in low-wage jobs such as personal care, which adds to economic inequalities.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

What is the wage gap amongst the same job role?

For example, are female cashiers paid 80% what male cashiers are?

[-] apis@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

In most of Europe, it is illegal to pay differently for equal work, so a female cashier would be paid the same as a male cashier.

The gap arises where men are able to take more hours, obtain more qualifications, develop more experience, enter more lucrative industries, get more promotions & they are far less likely to leave paid employment to raise children.

Some of that is due to personal choice, which is fine, but most of it is down to societal hurdles outside of work which determine how women approach the workplace.

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The gap arises where men are able to take more hours, obtain more qualifications, develop more experience

Men are able to, or they are practically forced to? Because when I took paternity leave, I heard managers describe it as a "vacation", which is a term I've never seen used to describe maternity leave. And when I left my job to take care of my second child, my co-workers described it as "career suicide", which again I've never seen used to describe a woman's decision to raise her child.

So I have to wonder: how many fathers out there would rather be raising their kids but don't get a real chance to do so because they know their careers would suffer disproportionately to their female coworkers?

[-] Turun@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

And when I left my job to take care of my second child, my co-workers described it as "career suicide", which again I've never seen used to describe a woman's decision to raise her child.

Ironically the same could and arguably should be said about a woman choosing to raise her children. Because this is what makes up the vast majority of the gender pay gap, after accounting for the profession. And it makes total sense because raising kids for two, four, six years leaves you with much less experience compared to your peers who did not have children.

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Taking time off from work to raise your children is particularly detrimental to your career when you are a father, and I suspect it is one of the biggest reasons why we don't see it more often.

[-] apis@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Still amounts to more time in the workplace, forced or otherwise.

It isn't a comment on whether that is what men want or are ok with. Ditto employees generally.

Certainly a major strand of reducing the gender pay gap will be about fixing rights, practices & attitudes surrounding paternity leave.

[-] Turun@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

But it is worthwhile to rephrase the issue in this way.

Do we want women to work more, or do we want men to take on more house and care work? These are two different things. Both are "enforced" by society, to the detriment of people who want to go against the social norm. The former focuses on the issues faced by women, while ignoring the suffering of men. And vice versa for the second phrasing. But both are faces of the same coin!

[-] apis@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Neither!

The idea is to remove these societal distortions, or grain if you will, so that everyone is free to structure their lives as best suits their needs, abilities and preferences.

There can be no ignoring of the suffering of men in examining the pay gap, because it is inextricably linked to the pay gap, which in itself is just one tiny aspect of the many things which are awry with the workplace and how everyone accesses it.

[-] Turun@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

There can be no ignoring of the suffering of men in examining the pay gap,

It's nice that you see it that way, but the article ignored it the whole way through, never mentioning it once.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 5 points 1 year ago

That depends heavily on which country you're looking at.

It seems that the issue in Iceland isn't as much getting equal pay for equal work, but rather that women don't get equal work opportunities for cultural reasons.

We could say that their issue is of why "typical womens jobs" pay less than "typical mens jobs" (regardless of the individual employee being woman or man).

The same situation still exists in all the countries that rank better on the equality lists, whereas the low ranking countries probably have more basic discriminatory issues that need to solved first.

They're tying it in with domestic violence and this might be a way to address the cultural issues.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. Hopefully it will make actual changes for the entire sectors rather than just a mindless gender bonus which could make things even worse.

[-] yeather@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago

No study has ever gotten an adjusted pay gap correct. Its all propagandized crap meant to distract you from the bigger issue. In the free world woman have just as much opportunity for high paying jobs as men. Its personal choice that limits them in job choice or life choices.

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] 520@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wish the UK would do something like this, and they have it worse than the Icelanders.

Heck, I wish they'd get up off their ass about anything. The UK railway strikers had the right idea, no idea why it's limited to them.

[-] 0x815@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

The Gender Equality Index conference

24 OCT 2023 -10:30-13:00 CEST - ONLINE

All events of the series on Gender Equality and the European Green Deal will be live-streamed on EIGE's website and YouTube channel. The language of all events of the series is English with an interpretation to international sign language. Viewers will have the possibility to ask questions via the Slido platform. By registering you will sign up to receive updates on the event and a link to view the live-stream.

Europe

Rules