Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Article I found interesting and surprisingly thorough on GPA and salary.

[Glowcat]

That's an interesting break down which eliminates some clouding issues with typically provided statistics that broadly apply to women earnings without looking at particular job groups and racial factors as well (being that women of color are often most negatively effected by the wage gap). Though there's still a question of where the discrimination materializes. Is it when hiring is done, or are women in good positions judged differently and thus can't rock the boat like a man would be able to, such as how Jill Abramson was fired for trumped up nonsense that sits counter to the facts?

[Vector]

There's also this: Gender wage gap in allowances.

I suspect--just from personal experience and the culminated knowledge from reading a bunch of studies--that it comes in at both places you mention, Glowcat. However, I couldn't really tell you which way it leans in particular.

[WoobMonkey]

I'm not going to launch in on my own opinions, here - I've been at the bottom of more than one dogpile, and have learned my lessons.  Instead, I'd like to throw a few links out, and let the rest of you take what you may from them:


A deep analysis of the reasons; the 'wage gap' isn't what you may think it is

Men are more likely to be unemployed, across all age demographics

A journalist explains the sort of data-manipulation major feminist organizations are culpible of, in the name of ideology

Why isn't N.O.W. clamouring for more women in fisheries?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(I admit my slant, openly.  Feminism is not only anti-man; it's anti-human.  I respect the women in my life far too much to buy into pseudo-socialist ideologies that claim to speak for them)

[Tiruin]

I've a feeling that, while both sides being presented in the recent [last 3 :v] posts are or have truth to them, they are poking at different...values(?) as their target.

In some places in the world, the wage gap exists and people are being...persecuted(?) or discriminated by that.

In some places, the difference exists as an opposite.

But, in my opinion, some posts seem to poke at superficial data (numbers instead of the root causes, or where those numbers are translated from). Wasn't this thread created as a spin-off(?) in checking why gender discrimination exists and the values those who do so inculcate?

I mean, yes, feminism and all that [which I guess the current debates are going along]--there are members of places which skew the facts for selfish motives but there are also people who work fully and sincerely for equality. That exists. Any notes on those specific people?

We could have more to discuss on given the food for thought present (or I'm missing the point).

^{Nghh my English. Apologies.} 

[Vector]

I respect the women in my life far too much to buy into pseudo-socialist ideologies that claim to speak for them

I'm a woman. I'm speaking for myself.

[WoobMonkey]

I respect the women in my life far too much to buy into pseudo-socialist ideologies that claim to speak for them

I'm a woman. I'm speaking for myself.

Excellent.  As long as youi're not claiming to speak for all women, then we can surely find common ground.  Just as I don't claim to speak for all of any arbitrary grouping of society, either.

[alexandertnt]

(I admit my slant, openly.  Feminism is not only anti-man; it's anti-human.  I respect the women in my life far too much to buy into pseudo-socialist ideologies that claim to speak for them)

You know, its becoming harder and harder to talk about anything related to womens rights without being labeled a feminist (Which is apparently a bad thing) because that means by extension your misandric or a nazi or something. Now your anti-human too! Lovely! Probably comes from the observation that some random asshole "feminists" spew extremeist nonsense.

Its like trying to silence or discredit discussions on legitimate men-related problems by identifying the existance of some asshole guy who thinks rape should effectively be legal or something.

I have no idea what "pseudo-socialist ideologies" are even supposed to be and why they would be bad, unless they are just supposed to sound scary because, you know, "socialism".

[WoobMonkey]

I did not claim that you, or anyone else here, is a feminist.  I made a point about Feminism; not about you.  So let's not take it that way, okay - and instead, work on the assumption that each of us is an individual, with our own take on society's status. 

As for the 'pseudo-socialist' attribution: feminisim is an ideology which aims to shape society to fit its own ends, by whatever means availible.  That is socialism.  The 'pseudo' part comes from having no base economic theory from which to draw, nor any cohesive plan moving forward.  That is, in my opinion, downright ridiculous.

[Tiruin]

I did not claim that you, or anyone else here, is a feminist.  I made a point about Feminism; not about you.  So let's not take it that way, okay - and instead, work on the assumption that each of us is an individual, with our own take on society's status. 

That's what I generally meant, silly. xD

[WoobMonkey]

That's what I generally meant, silly. xD

My apologies, I ought to have quoted.  I meant that as a reply to alexandertnt.

[GavJ]

The very term itself "wage gap" pretty much highlights the problems with putting too much stock in the wage gap.
The term itself implies an absolute difference in wages, which shouldn't be what anybody cares about.
You should care about the portion of the difference that is due to unjustified prejudice.

Answering that requires a few things that deflate all the interesting pizazz from splashy headlines:
1) You have to specifically define only a single point in the employment process that your statistic will apply to. I.e., you have to say "I want to know the effect of discrimination AT HIRING" or "I want to know the effect of discrimination AT PROMOTION" or what have you. The answer will be different for different points, and you can't meaningfully collapse across them. This makes a single summary number impossible pretty much, and thus a single splashy billboard sound byte that's accurate impossible.

2) You have to painstakingly pick out identically matching cases across every variable possible, except gender. In some cases, this will simply not be possible, or won't have enough data points. Like the issue mentioned above about women's combat gear - you can't really find matching data points with women and men who have identical bodies and need identical gear to compare, because the sex's bodies are different... Maybe you can find a handful, but not enough to analyze.

3) You then need to set up some sort of experimental condition where the decision to be made is parallel between the two sides of each pair, except for their gender, and measure outcomes in a controlled fashion. Looking at past, naturalistic data won't do if you want really accurate results, because you can't guarantee the circumstances were otherwise controlled.

4) You need to now make sure that any differences in outcomes were UNJUSTIFIED, which is not necessarily all the time. Otherwise equally paired candidates applying to be dancers at a strip club and getting unequal outcomes cannot really be said to be an unjustified prejudice (presumably the employer really does need one gender or the other, depending on the business model and patrons of the club).

After all that, you get a number that represents the gap due to unjustified discrimination only, for one particular stage in the employment process. Not very sexy to word it that way, but that's the proper method.

I've only ever seen all this done a couple of times, and it's always been with made-up people (experiments showing a person hypothetical job applications, for instance). The results have been that there is a gap, something like 15-20% if I recall correctly.  For hiring salaries, that is. Sadly I can't find actual citations / don't remember the titles or authors.

But if people have studies that qualify with the above, then those are ideal, is all I'm saying.

[alexandertnt]

I did not claim that you, or anyone else here, is a feminist.  I made a point about Feminism; not about you.  So let's not take it that way, okay - and instead, work on the assumption that each of us is an individual, with our own take on society's status. 

Hmm, let me put this differently.

I am not a fan of overly-broard political classifications, but anyone who knows me would probably find "feminist socialist" not such an inaccurate description.

And I certainly don't feel particularly opposed to humanity or men (I am a guy, after all).

Perhaps thats because feminism and socialism are topics somewhat more complex than "something opposed to humanity" or "change by whatever means availible"?

Maby...

[GavJ]

Perhaps thats because feminism and socialism are topics somewhat more complex than "something opposed to humanity" or "change by whatever means availible"?

Immediately makes me think [OPPOSED_TO_LIFE], lol

[WoobMonkey]

I am not a fan of overly-broard political classifications...

Let's start there; the place where we ostensibly have common ground.  My first question would be: is there a Patriarchy at work in the G8 nations?  Let's start with the basic Wikipedia definition, as that's the precedent you seem comfortable with:

Feminism defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. As feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman writes, "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection."[31] In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.[32]

Source.

My second question, as directly related to the proposition that any wage inequities are based on discrimination, rather than choice, is:  if you were a hiring manager for a multi-billion dollar firm, and knew that you could save 20-25% of your personnel costs by hiring Jill over Jack, would you, in light of your mandate to provide maximal profit to the shareholders?  If so, then why do any men whatsoever have jobs at all?  If not, what justification(s) do you think would be acceptable for not saving millions upon millions of dollars?

This is, of course, assuming that both Jill and Jack are similarly qualified and experienced, with similarly impeccible references, for the position they're applying to fill.