I disagree that the gap is solely because women make certain choices. There's proof that the gap exists for other reasons.
How much of the gap is due to the fact that men occupy the vast majority of really high paying jobs? Probably most of it.
And why, you ask, are there so many more men than women way up there on the corporate ladder?
3) No maternity. Business doesn't stop when you decide to shit out a few kids.
2) More men get engineering and business degrees than women, and if you're in high-tech, you NEED some sort of engineering background. It moves too fast to have dumb CEOs.
1) The female subculture -- the components of societal culture that impact pretty much only women -- tend to value risk-averse action plans and still hold in high regard the "just get married" principle. That's not there for men. Male culture promotes teamwork and victory in areas of risk. That's why so many guys watch/play sports for fun, and that's what makes good business culture. The growth of girls' sports will certainly help get women more leverage in the business world, but this is a trend that just started. Wait 20 years and then there are only 2 big reasons I can think of why men make better business leaders.
I'm guessing the man and the women, respectively, and that only reinforces my discrimination argument on another level.
If it enforces your discrimination, then you ought to at least say that it is discrmination by the state against both parties instead of framing it as discrimination against women by men.
Quote:
OK. I'm convinced you're making this up as you go along. I cited the question from a GAO report, not some 5th grade science paper link off the web. It's much harder to find obvious logical fallacies like "loaded questions" here. On that regard, you're completely wrong. A loaded question is like asking "do you still beat your wife" because it presupposes that you have a wife and you have beaten her. What am I presupposing here, trumptman? One would think it necessary for proving a loaded question. Advice: Please stick to language you know, and don't try to use fancy debate terms you definitely don't understand.
It's the dismissive, I don't like what you are posted so I'll call you ignorant tactic again. This get very tiring. I suppose I won't reply to you any more in this thread after this since you are an expert at busing tables and dismissing intelligently written replies.
You claim it isn't a loaded question because a loaded question presupposes an answer. I said quite clearly that the question from GAO presupposed an answer of full time work and the highest earnings for that work as successful. It assigns no value or success to anything else. I explained it clearly, you dismissed it. (But what else is new) There are many other factors to consider with job success. Studies have shown for example that women tend to favor job flexibility, and also job security. As for your advice, call me when you have some credentials with which to advise me. Until then, go clear the dishes.
There are plenty of feminist views that advocate both partners working part time, staying home part time and sharing the earning and domestic duties. The full blown career track where you work maximum hours to gain maximum money isn't even considered the definition of success by all men, let alone all women. In otherwords some of us, be they male or female aren't going to spend our lives trying to make partner in the firm, we'd rather make partner with our spouses. If you can't understand that, and see how the government is chosing that one definition of success, then that is your intellectual limitation, and not grounds to question or advise others.
Quote:
What?
Having trouble comprehending again? I'll make it easier for you to understand.
Shawn become lawyer. Shawn work 60-70 hour weeks, 220 days a year. Shawn make $150k a year.
Nick become teacher. Nick work 40 hour weeks, 180 days a year. Nick make $60k a year.
These differences are called personal choices. There is a wage gap, but not because evil Shawn is oppressing me.
Pretend that Nick is Nikki and female. Now there is a wage gap and evil Shawn is oppressing me.
How is this so? Well society forced me to be a teacher by demanding I curtail my education to care for future children. (Even though I could abort them at will) I had no choice but to become a teacher.
Of course all the discrimination here is just assumed. It is hidden in conspiratorial language like "may be influenced by societal discrimination" which can't even be proven. Yet when you remove the gender issue no one would assume I was "forced" or even "socialized" to make the choices I did that led to the difference in our two wages.
Quote:
Purely choice? As opposed to what, "Unpure" choice? Are we talking bottled water or the wage gap? I don't understand what you're saying in this paragraph until the last two sentences, when you indict feminism's nonexistent goal of trying to establish a "system of privilege." Wrong. Feminism's goal is equality, which is why females having the same choices as men might not be enough. Remember, the debate is "whether decisions that women make to manage work and family responsibilities are freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination."
If you don't understand something, just fess up. Don't start parsing in an attempt to hide your intellectual limitations. If you don't understand what I mean by privilege then go do some searches on comparible wages for comparable jobs. Then you would understand that in the future I could declare our educations and jobs "comparable" and sue to insure I am paid equal to you or that you are paid less. The definition of comparable is quite broad depending upon how radical the feminist cares to define it.
And again if you can't see how the question "freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination" isn't loaded, then that is on you. When a man takes a career path, it is assumed to be freely chosen. Even if it leads to less than full time work, or less than steller pay. When a woman does, it must be discrimination. If you can't see how the question and definition of success are being loaded there, then again that is your limitation. I used you (in the future as the high powered lawyer you will be) and myself. If I'm a man, it is choice. If I were a woman, suddenly it is choice...or...underlying discrimination that doesn't have to be proven, just alleged and then remedied.
Quote:
Please.
You can believe that money is not the sole definition of success but still be pissed when women earn less than men with all other factors controlled. 'Truly enlightened' women should just accept the wage gap? Bullshit.
So then should I also be pissed when men have a parenting gap? A life expectancy gap? A die in the war disproportionately gap? A gap, not in who earns the money among couples, but in who spends it? (Do some research on who advertiser target as doing the spending in the family)
And again you use with all other factors controlled when they aren't. Many studies make use of comparability instead of equality. I don't know anyone who opposes equality. I know plenty who oppose comparability. I could have a doctorate in education and you could have a doctorate in law. We are comparable in education, but we will not be equal in pay. The reason will not be discrimination. It would be other factors regarding worth and the marketplace.
People have mentioned this numerous times and you just dismiss it and repeat yourself.
Sorry Splinemodel, but I would guess that you're sexist. Even if you don't know it.
I know you're type well enough, and I'm used to taking flak from you guys. I don't usually bother to explain myself, but maybe this time I feel like being a jerk. You can take this quiz and rate yourself.
There are a few lines by which I judge people.
1) Passion: If a person is passionate about what they do, I'm impressed. That is, does what you do in life reflect your dreams?
2) Confidence: I like people who believe in themselves and strive to maintain ideals.
3) Inteligence: simple enough, but this is ancillary.
4) X-Factor (Mission specific)
All of these things lead to one big 'ol metric, namely the positive impact the person can have on my life when put in a situation of proximity. I don't care what race, sex, or creed is involved here, but if these affect the overall metric, then, well, that's tough shit. I can certainly do better.
Being in the sphere of high-tech small business, I've had to learn a lot on my own very quickly, and fortunately I've had some good mentors. . . not exactly old boys network since they haven't quite gotten to high-tech. Most businessmen I know do more or less the same thing when hiring. If there's a really brilliant, unmarried, spunky woman out there with a solid technical or business background, she's a strong candidate. . . . I'd probably hire her over almost anyone on this board. But all in all, the cultural side effects of being a normal, middle/upper class girl in modern America do not lend themselves to the transformation of a barbie girl into a sucessful entrepreneur.
I guess the point is that when it comes to business I want to surround myself with people who are going to make me (and all of us together) more money. I would love to hire some really awesome women, and you should know that hiring isn't all that hard since there's a healthy degree of self-selection involved. There are just far more guys out there who want to take risks in small business for the chance of taking the elevator instead of the ladder, and in the end if 10% of startups make it, that's generally a lot of men (and a few women) who take the elevator.
1) Passion: If a person is passionate about what they do, I'm impressed. That is, does what you do in life reflect your dreams?
2) Confidence: I like people who believe in themselves and strive to maintain ideals.
3) Inteligence: simple enough, but this is ancillary.
4) X-Factor (Mission specific)
I feel like I'd do fine in your judgment system.
Seriously though, I understand your situation. I'd liken it to coal mining or something. Yes, some women could do it as well as the best of men, but very few of the capable ones show up to do the job.
I think the big problem is that you're generalizing your specific situation across the rest of the market. Even if it's accurate for our specific situation, it's not an accurate generalization.
Shawn become lawyer. Shawn work 60-70 hour weeks, 220 days a year. Shawn make $150k a year.
Nick become teacher. Nick work 40 hour weeks, 180 days a year. Nick make $60k a year.
These differences are called personal choices. There is a wage gap, but not because evil Shawn is oppressing me.
Pretend that Nick is Nikki and female. Now there is a wage gap and evil Shawn is oppressing me.
How is this so? Well society forced me to be a teacher by demanding I curtail my education to care for future children. (Even though I could abort them at will) I had no choice but to become a teacher.
My family is full of them. Why? I was showing how the same process applied across two genders is suddenly given a sinister motive for no reason other than a political agenda.
i think it's a myth. it really probably hovers around 5-7% due to gender. every other part of it is due to various other factors which have a legitimate effect on pay.
of that 5-7%, i'm sure a good chunk is due to how women are raised, and the fact that people who are timid etc. are less likely to get a raise.
i think it's a myth. it really probably hovers around 5-7% due to gender. every other part of it is due to various other factors which have a legitimate effect on pay.
of that 5-7%, i'm sure a good chunk is due to how women are raised, and the fact that people who are timid etc. are less likely to get a raise.
Fine. But I'm not sure how you can legitimately say that. You know?
I really hate to agree with BR, but, alas I must. Speaking as a woman, I have never experienced a wage gap based on my gender.
Another little tidbit to keep in mind when considering the statistics: a woman with a college degree makes 90% (yes, you read that right) more than a woman without a college degree. And men and women with college degress are neck and neck (sorry, didn't memorize that particular number). So you start throwing women of different educational background together and start comparing them to men, well you are going to have some skewed numbers.
I really hate to agree with BR, but, alas I must. Speaking as a woman, I have never experienced a wage gap based on my gender.
Another little tidbit to keep in mind when considering the statistics: a woman with a college degree makes 90% (yes, you read that right) more than a woman without a college degree. And men and women with college degress are neck and neck (sorry, didn't memorize that particular number). So you start throwing women of different educational background together and start comparing them to men, well you are going to have some skewed numbers.
And yeah, I am NOT a feminist
What *exactly* do you agree with? That the average full-time gender wage gap isn't 26%? Based on *what*?
What *exactly* do you agree with? That the average full-time gender wage gap isn't 26%? Based on *what*?
She agrees with the statement BR started the thread with, you know the assertion he put in big black bold letters.
The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so. Comparable worth promotes a dependence for women, and a reliance on government for protection. Given women's achievements, such dependence is unnecessary. American women enjoy historically unparalleled success and freedom, and the progress they have made in the past half century will continue.
She agrees with the statement BR started the thread with, you know the assertion he put in big black bold letters.
The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so. Comparable worth promotes a dependence for women, and a reliance on government for protection. Given women's achievements, such dependence is unnecessary. American women enjoy historically unparalleled success and freedom, and the progress they have made in the past half century will continue.
Nick
Fine. She agrees that "the average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so." To which I reply: based on what? The average wage gap has a significant portion, 9%-13% unaccounted for by any other factors, including choices about the education and professional careers of women. So to agree with Diana Furchtgott-Roth's statement is to ignore the wage gap part that is unaccounted for. Moreover, there is real debate about whether choices are freely made or influenced by discrimination as well. So...
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
BR, you don't comprehend.
I disagree that the gap is solely because women make certain choices. There's proof that the gap exists for other reasons.
How much of the gap is due to the fact that men occupy the vast majority of really high paying jobs? Probably most of it.
And why, you ask, are there so many more men than women way up there on the corporate ladder?
3) No maternity. Business doesn't stop when you decide to shit out a few kids.
2) More men get engineering and business degrees than women, and if you're in high-tech, you NEED some sort of engineering background. It moves too fast to have dumb CEOs.
1) The female subculture -- the components of societal culture that impact pretty much only women -- tend to value risk-averse action plans and still hold in high regard the "just get married" principle. That's not there for men. Male culture promotes teamwork and victory in areas of risk. That's why so many guys watch/play sports for fun, and that's what makes good business culture. The growth of girls' sports will certainly help get women more leverage in the business world, but this is a trend that just started. Wait 20 years and then there are only 2 big reasons I can think of why men make better business leaders.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
....
Sorry Splinemodel, but I would guess that you're sexist. Even if you don't know it.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I'm guessing the man and the women, respectively, and that only reinforces my discrimination argument on another level.
If it enforces your discrimination, then you ought to at least say that it is discrmination by the state against both parties instead of framing it as discrimination against women by men.
OK. I'm convinced you're making this up as you go along. I cited the question from a GAO report, not some 5th grade science paper link off the web. It's much harder to find obvious logical fallacies like "loaded questions" here. On that regard, you're completely wrong. A loaded question is like asking "do you still beat your wife" because it presupposes that you have a wife and you have beaten her. What am I presupposing here, trumptman? One would think it necessary for proving a loaded question. Advice: Please stick to language you know, and don't try to use fancy debate terms you definitely don't understand.
It's the dismissive, I don't like what you are posted so I'll call you ignorant tactic again. This get very tiring. I suppose I won't reply to you any more in this thread after this since you are an expert at busing tables and dismissing intelligently written replies.
You claim it isn't a loaded question because a loaded question presupposes an answer. I said quite clearly that the question from GAO presupposed an answer of full time work and the highest earnings for that work as successful. It assigns no value or success to anything else. I explained it clearly, you dismissed it. (But what else is new) There are many other factors to consider with job success. Studies have shown for example that women tend to favor job flexibility, and also job security. As for your advice, call me when you have some credentials with which to advise me. Until then, go clear the dishes.
There are plenty of feminist views that advocate both partners working part time, staying home part time and sharing the earning and domestic duties. The full blown career track where you work maximum hours to gain maximum money isn't even considered the definition of success by all men, let alone all women. In otherwords some of us, be they male or female aren't going to spend our lives trying to make partner in the firm, we'd rather make partner with our spouses. If you can't understand that, and see how the government is chosing that one definition of success, then that is your intellectual limitation, and not grounds to question or advise others.
What?
Having trouble comprehending again? I'll make it easier for you to understand.
Shawn become lawyer. Shawn work 60-70 hour weeks, 220 days a year. Shawn make $150k a year.
Nick become teacher. Nick work 40 hour weeks, 180 days a year. Nick make $60k a year.
These differences are called personal choices. There is a wage gap, but not because evil Shawn is oppressing me.
Pretend that Nick is Nikki and female. Now there is a wage gap and evil Shawn is oppressing me.
How is this so? Well society forced me to be a teacher by demanding I curtail my education to care for future children. (Even though I could abort them at will) I had no choice but to become a teacher.
Of course all the discrimination here is just assumed. It is hidden in conspiratorial language like "may be influenced by societal discrimination" which can't even be proven. Yet when you remove the gender issue no one would assume I was "forced" or even "socialized" to make the choices I did that led to the difference in our two wages.
Purely choice? As opposed to what, "Unpure" choice? Are we talking bottled water or the wage gap? I don't understand what you're saying in this paragraph until the last two sentences, when you indict feminism's nonexistent goal of trying to establish a "system of privilege." Wrong. Feminism's goal is equality, which is why females having the same choices as men might not be enough. Remember, the debate is "whether decisions that women make to manage work and family responsibilities are freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination."
If you don't understand something, just fess up. Don't start parsing in an attempt to hide your intellectual limitations. If you don't understand what I mean by privilege then go do some searches on comparible wages for comparable jobs. Then you would understand that in the future I could declare our educations and jobs "comparable" and sue to insure I am paid equal to you or that you are paid less. The definition of comparable is quite broad depending upon how radical the feminist cares to define it.
And again if you can't see how the question "freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination" isn't loaded, then that is on you. When a man takes a career path, it is assumed to be freely chosen. Even if it leads to less than full time work, or less than steller pay. When a woman does, it must be discrimination. If you can't see how the question and definition of success are being loaded there, then again that is your limitation. I used you (in the future as the high powered lawyer you will be) and myself. If I'm a man, it is choice. If I were a woman, suddenly it is choice...or...underlying discrimination that doesn't have to be proven, just alleged and then remedied.
Please.
You can believe that money is not the sole definition of success but still be pissed when women earn less than men with all other factors controlled. 'Truly enlightened' women should just accept the wage gap? Bullshit.
So then should I also be pissed when men have a parenting gap? A life expectancy gap? A die in the war disproportionately gap? A gap, not in who earns the money among couples, but in who spends it? (Do some research on who advertiser target as doing the spending in the family)
And again you use with all other factors controlled when they aren't. Many studies make use of comparability instead of equality. I don't know anyone who opposes equality. I know plenty who oppose comparability. I could have a doctorate in education and you could have a doctorate in law. We are comparable in education, but we will not be equal in pay. The reason will not be discrimination. It would be other factors regarding worth and the marketplace.
People have mentioned this numerous times and you just dismiss it and repeat yourself.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry Splinemodel, but I would guess that you're sexist. Even if you don't know it.
I know you're type well enough, and I'm used to taking flak from you guys. I don't usually bother to explain myself, but maybe this time I feel like being a jerk. You can take this quiz and rate yourself.
There are a few lines by which I judge people.
1) Passion: If a person is passionate about what they do, I'm impressed. That is, does what you do in life reflect your dreams?
2) Confidence: I like people who believe in themselves and strive to maintain ideals.
3) Inteligence: simple enough, but this is ancillary.
4) X-Factor (Mission specific)
All of these things lead to one big 'ol metric, namely the positive impact the person can have on my life when put in a situation of proximity. I don't care what race, sex, or creed is involved here, but if these affect the overall metric, then, well, that's tough shit. I can certainly do better.
Being in the sphere of high-tech small business, I've had to learn a lot on my own very quickly, and fortunately I've had some good mentors. . . not exactly old boys network since they haven't quite gotten to high-tech. Most businessmen I know do more or less the same thing when hiring. If there's a really brilliant, unmarried, spunky woman out there with a solid technical or business background, she's a strong candidate. . . . I'd probably hire her over almost anyone on this board. But all in all, the cultural side effects of being a normal, middle/upper class girl in modern America do not lend themselves to the transformation of a barbie girl into a sucessful entrepreneur.
I guess the point is that when it comes to business I want to surround myself with people who are going to make me (and all of us together) more money. I would love to hire some really awesome women, and you should know that hiring isn't all that hard since there's a healthy degree of self-selection involved. There are just far more guys out there who want to take risks in small business for the chance of taking the elevator instead of the ladder, and in the end if 10% of startups make it, that's generally a lot of men (and a few women) who take the elevator.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are a few lines by which I judge people.
1) Passion: If a person is passionate about what they do, I'm impressed. That is, does what you do in life reflect your dreams?
2) Confidence: I like people who believe in themselves and strive to maintain ideals.
3) Inteligence: simple enough, but this is ancillary.
4) X-Factor (Mission specific)
I feel like I'd do fine in your judgment system.
Seriously though, I understand your situation. I'd liken it to coal mining or something. Yes, some women could do it as well as the best of men, but very few of the capable ones show up to do the job.
I think the big problem is that you're generalizing your specific situation across the rest of the market. Even if it's accurate for our specific situation, it's not an accurate generalization.
Originally posted by trumptman
Shawn become lawyer. Shawn work 60-70 hour weeks, 220 days a year. Shawn make $150k a year.
Nick become teacher. Nick work 40 hour weeks, 180 days a year. Nick make $60k a year.
These differences are called personal choices. There is a wage gap, but not because evil Shawn is oppressing me.
Pretend that Nick is Nikki and female. Now there is a wage gap and evil Shawn is oppressing me.
How is this so? Well society forced me to be a teacher by demanding I curtail my education to care for future children. (Even though I could abort them at will) I had no choice but to become a teacher.
Originally posted by Giaguara
Nick
of that 5-7%, i'm sure a good chunk is due to how women are raised, and the fact that people who are timid etc. are less likely to get a raise.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i think it's a myth. it really probably hovers around 5-7% due to gender. every other part of it is due to various other factors which have a legitimate effect on pay.
of that 5-7%, i'm sure a good chunk is due to how women are raised, and the fact that people who are timid etc. are less likely to get a raise.
Fine. But I'm not sure how you can legitimately say that. You know?
Another little tidbit to keep in mind when considering the statistics: a woman with a college degree makes 90% (yes, you read that right) more than a woman without a college degree. And men and women with college degress are neck and neck (sorry, didn't memorize that particular number). So you start throwing women of different educational background together and start comparing them to men, well you are going to have some skewed numbers.
And yeah, I am NOT a feminist
Originally posted by Fangorn
I really hate to agree with BR, but, alas I must. Speaking as a woman, I have never experienced a wage gap based on my gender.
Another little tidbit to keep in mind when considering the statistics: a woman with a college degree makes 90% (yes, you read that right) more than a woman without a college degree. And men and women with college degress are neck and neck (sorry, didn't memorize that particular number). So you start throwing women of different educational background together and start comparing them to men, well you are going to have some skewed numbers.
And yeah, I am NOT a feminist
What *exactly* do you agree with? That the average full-time gender wage gap isn't 26%? Based on *what*?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What *exactly* do you agree with? That the average full-time gender wage gap isn't 26%? Based on *what*?
She agrees with the statement BR started the thread with, you know the assertion he put in big black bold letters.
The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so. Comparable worth promotes a dependence for women, and a reliance on government for protection. Given women's achievements, such dependence is unnecessary. American women enjoy historically unparalleled success and freedom, and the progress they have made in the past half century will continue.
Nick
What *exactly* do you agree with? That the average full-time gender wage gap isn't 26%? Based on *what*?
maybe based on the article you yourself posted?
Originally posted by trumptman
She agrees with the statement BR started the thread with, you know the assertion he put in big black bold letters.
The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so. Comparable worth promotes a dependence for women, and a reliance on government for protection. Given women's achievements, such dependence is unnecessary. American women enjoy historically unparalleled success and freedom, and the progress they have made in the past half century will continue.
Nick
Fine. She agrees that "the average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so." To which I reply: based on what? The average wage gap has a significant portion, 9%-13% unaccounted for by any other factors, including choices about the education and professional careers of women. So to agree with Diana Furchtgott-Roth's statement is to ignore the wage gap part that is unaccounted for. Moreover, there is real debate about whether choices are freely made or influenced by discrimination as well. So...
Originally posted by alcimedes
maybe based on the article you yourself posted?
What?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What?
keep your numbers straighe from post to post. it will go a looong way towards credibility.
The average wage gap has a significant portion, 9%-13%
That the average full-time gender wage gap isn't 26%? Based on *what*?
Originally posted by alcimedes
keep your numbers straighe from post to post. it will go a looong way towards credibility.
How are they not straight?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
How are they not straight?
They like to take it in the ass from other guys.