56 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Or, instead of linking PDFs that are 30+ pages in length and that broadly cover numerous topics, you could just get to your point.

Women do not earn less than men anywhere in the United States. Keyword: earn. If a man works in a certain field and makes $20 an hour, a woman working that same job will also make $20 an hour. There is no gap in pay. Women, on average, make less money overall than men because again, women pursue different careers than men.

But idiot feminists who don't understand this will look at the headline and parrot it off to their idiot friends, shrieking about workplace discrimination and sexism. Women only make less than men if you fully aggregate and calculate what women earn, working full time and working year-round, compared to what men earn, working full time and working year-round. Women, on average, work lesser-paying white-collar jobs and are less inclined to pursue higher paying STEM careers, which is why it looks like women earn less. In the United States, women tend to retire slightly earlier than men (between 1 and 2 years, on average) do as well (and obviously one is not earning a salary when they are no longer working).

Per 2010, women made up just under half of the workforce in the US (47%). That alone should explain why, in a country with 350 million people, women are making less than men. Likewise in 2010, nearly a quarter of working women (26.6%) did not work a full time job, instead working part time. Moreover, women are half again more likely than men to work in the public sector (which in the U.S. typically means a moderately lower income than the private sector). "Overwork", as defined by the American Sociological Review, refers to an employee working 50 or more hours in a typical work week. Roughly a fifth of men (19%) will work overwork, as compared to only 7% of women in the same field. In short, men work more overtime than women do.

Failing to even take all of that into account, women are the ones who have children. In the UK and US, close to 43% of women will take time away from their jobs to raise their child or children. Going back to the American Sociological Review, only 74% of women will actually return to work once they have children, and only 40% will go back to working full time.

Finally, women simply take different jobs than men do. The highest average salary in America in 2014 was for physicians, at $212,000 a year. There are far more men than women who work as physicians. Out of nearly 900,000 physicians in the United States, men make up 589,000, or almost 2/3 of the total population. Of course men are going to make more money in this field because there are more men working in it than there are women.

There is no wage gap. Women make the same amount of money as men do in any given line of work. The caveat is that women pursue different fields than men do, and due to a number of factors, tend to work less than men. The very fact that women do find work in prestigious fields and have high-ranking positions that earn a lot of money means that they can achieve it, so it's not like there's any widespread sexism or discrimination against them. With all of the affirmative action we give women and all of the added incentives we try to give to them to nudge them into pursuing higher-paying work, they still don't work in those fields, because they simply don't want to work in those fields.

I'm sorry, but you just can't math good.

Since you are so intimidated by actual reports that use words, I'll stick to linking pretty pictures for you. Women make less than men. Not less as an entire gender (your 47% of the workforce comment is face palm worthy) and not less in a particular industry, but they make less in the exact same jobs, doing the exact same work.

https://img.washingt...er-2.png&w=1484
Workers in the food service industry

http://cdn.accountin...qp9t6u1qbv7.jpg
Salaries for CPA/Accountants

https://www.massbar....ekly salary.jpg
Salaries for lawyers

http://www.mddorecru...3/Men-Women.jpg
Salaries for doctors


I can keep posting pretty pictures for you, if you'd like. Name a profession not stereotypical for women (like nursing or teaching) and I'll bet money there is a gender gap. The only contrast to this is, ironically, construction and trade jobs, such as plumber and electrician. These fields pay nearly 1:1 when it comes to gender.

http://liberalbias.c...dustry_.001.png

[Fast Jimmy]

Double post

[Fast Jimmy]

One more thing I never thought to mention, but is relevant to the topic: Men are more inclined to negotiate over salaries than women are, because men are naturally more competitive. Women are naturally more cooperative, and so are less likely to haggle over pay. That's not to say that there aren't men who are content with what they get and that there aren't women who try to get better deals, there certainly are. Personally (as a male), I don't tend to negotiate prices all that much unless the number in question is blatantly higher or lower than it "should" be (in a competitive business sense).

This is absolutely true. Women are much less likely to ask for a raise or to push for higher merit increases during things like annual performance reviews.

They are also more likely to take extended leaves (such as for maternity), which can hurt their ability to ask for salary increases if they prefer a more flexible work schedule to balance out their family life.

All of these and more are good reasons why women get paid less than men, other than just "lolsexism," like many would have you believe. But that doesn't mean women DON'T get paid less. That's just a fallacious statement.

[Billy-the-Squid]

That's assuming that pay enters into these decisions. That is patently not the case.

I am well-versed in the recruiting and hiring process, from both sides of the equation. The process goes through numerous levels of review and interviews before money is ever seriously discussed. Prior to that point, no candidate is labeled with a dollar amount that would help them rise of fall in their consideration. If it comes down to the wire between a handful of candidates, the amount they are asking for would be one factor in making the decision. However:

1) it is not the only consideration, as many times businesses hire the more "expensive" candidate due to perceived bonuses on their return

2) many women are eliminated prior to that point, as can be seen by one of the studies I quoted where candidates were passed up for recommendation for a research position if their resume had a female name but were suggested for recommendation if they had a male name, even when the decision makers were female

Women make less, but that doesn't mean that they are seen as a "bargain" by many companies. Bias is still strong in hiring processes, not to mention the nature of connections + friends over actual qualifications... but that is an entirely different discussion.

 

And why is that? Men work longer in terms of years before retirement, no danger of having to deal paid maternity leave, generally more competitive, aggressive in salary negotiations, career driven etc. 

 

There's bias, but it's not based on gender. Hiring men for certain roles and sectors simply reaps more benefits for the company in question when one looks at the predominate attitudes and statistics which happen to benefit an employer, larger numbers of men being in STEM fields is a by product of that.

 

Hence the gender pay gap is utter crap. The pay gap is not based on gender. If it was, companies would snap up more women as they possesses all the same traits as men, they don't because the attitude and skills sets of men and women diverge, as a result certain fields are dominated by men. Why? Because they're a better choice than their female counterparts.

[o Ventus]

In 2010, women represented 46.7 percent of the United States labor force, a slightly larger share than at the start of the recession in 2007.

 

Unless you're going to tell me that the Department of Labor is face palm worthy, since that's where I got that number from (and rounding up to the nearest whole number).

 

This video uses the same DoL sources I've been pulling from:

 

https://youtu.be/T09Bx6xoHSQ?t=10m11s

 

Start at the 10:11 mark if for whatever reason it doesn't automatically start there upon clicking the link.

[Fast Jimmy]

And why is that? Men work longer in terms of years before retirement, no danger of having to deal paid maternity leave, generally more competitive, aggressive in salary negotiations, career driven etc.

There's bias, but it's not based on gender. Hiring men for certain roles and sectors simply reaps more benefits for the company in question when one looks at the predominate attitudes and statistics which happen to benefit an employer, larger numbers of men being in STEM fields is a by product of that.

Maybe so. Recent examples of younger women who are unmarried and without children show that they are making more money as a demographic:

http://content.time....2015274,00.html

This is due to women being more likely to graduate than men in today's market and that they are more likely to do more research for better paying jobs.

Hence the gender pay gap is utter crap. The pay gap is not based on gender. If it was, companies would snap up more women as they possesses all the same traits as men, they don't because the attitude and skills sets of men and women diverge, as a result certain fields are dominated by men. Why? Because they're a better choice than their female counterparts.

No, it is NOT crap. It exists. Whether or not it exists for reasons you think are valid or not is an entirely different discussion. You can argue that the Grand Canyon was caused by erosion from a former large waterway or by seismological activity, but you can't argue that it is a huge hole in the ground. You can't argue that women get paid less than men - it's pretty much a fact.

You can say men are more desireable to companies (or that, conversely, women are less desirable) or you can say women's life events, on an overall average, cause them to pass up opportunities that men would pursue that results in pay differences. Those are all valid debates, but they don't disprove that women get paid less.

[Fast Jimmy]

Unless you're going to tell me that the Department of Labor is face palm worthy, since that's where I got that number from (and rounding up to the nearest whole number).

This video uses the same DoL sources I've been pulling from:

https://youtu.be/T09Bx6xoHSQ?t=10m11s

Start at the 10:11 mark if for whatever reason it doesn't automatically start there upon clicking the link.

I'm not saying women don't make up 47% of the labor force... I'm face palming the fact that you took that fact and extrapolated it to mean "there's less women, so of course they get paid less than men, there's not as many!"

That shows you aren't even attempting to form an educated response. No one is saying that X millions amount of men make Y billions amount of dollars, which is more than the A millions amount of women make B amount of dollars. The argument is that John Smith and Jane Smith have the exact same education, the exact same experience, live in the exact same geographic area and work in the exact same job doing the exact same tasks - on average, Jane Smith makes 10-15% less than John.

So quoting how many women are in the workplace is totally irrelevant. We're not talking gross dollars here, we're talking directly comparing wages at an individual job level.

[Sully13]

Jimmy you forgot hours worked mate.

If she is receveing the same wage per houre she gets the same pay.

BUT are there any work placed things such as pensions ect Jack isnt entitled to? Also Days worked, Leave ( Maternity ect ) there ale lots od caviates here. 

[o Ventus]

No, it is NOT crap. It exists. Whether or not it exists for reasons you think are valid or not is an entirely different discussion. You can argue that the Grand Canyon was caused by erosion from a former large waterway or by seismological activity, but you can't argue that it is a huge hole in the ground. You can't argue that women get paid less than men - it's pretty much a fact.

You can say men are more desireable to companies (or that, conversely, women are less desirable) or you can say women's life events, on an overall average, cause them to pass up opportunities that men would pursue that results in pay differences. Those are all valid debates, but they don't disprove that women get paid less.

 

They get paid less than men because they pursue work in lower-paying areas than men and work less than men (the latter assuming the women in question settle down to start a family). Women are not earning less for the same work, they're earning less because the work they're doing offers less money per hour for the wage.

 

If Jane Smith and John Smith have the same qualifications and do the same work, their wage will be the same. This is mandated by law. The only reason Jane Smith would ever earn less money is if she chooses to have children and takes time away from work to be with her family or for whatever reason does less work than John.

[Sully13]

sod it im done i need popcorn and i cant link to anything anyway.

o Ventus Teal Dear on youtube has a great Video on this.  

[Fast Jimmy]

They get paid less than men because they pursue work in lower-paying areas than men and work less than men. Women are not earning less for the same work, they're earning less because the work they're doing offers less money per hour for the wage.

If Jane Smith and John Smith have the same qualifications and do the same work, their wage will be the same. This is mandated by law. The only reason Jane Smith would ever earn less money is if she chooses to have children and takes time away from work to be with her family or for whatever reason does less work than John.

This is just not true. Yes, there are laws that prevent wage disparity based on gender, but that doesn't mean there isn't wage disparity. It just means you can't say "you get paid less as a coal miner because you are a woman who can't work as hard as a man."

Numbers don't lie. Women with equal experience and education get paid less for the same job across numerous industries. As I stated to Billy, the fact that there are reasons for this outside of direct sexism (such as maternity leave or being less competitive about compensation) doesn't somehow make it untrue.

[von uber]

o Ventus you are talking bollocks.
Discrimination against women exists with regards to pay and career prospects. That is a fact.
They are also deterred from an early age from pursuing stem subjects which is a root cause of their under representation in those fields.
I have practical real world experience of this.


Anyway, shouldn't you posting on those other women hating threads? I'm seeing a common theme here for quite a few of you.

[o Ventus]

o Ventus you are talking bollocks.

 

Discrimination against women exists with regards to pay and career prospects. That is a fact.
They are also deterred from an early age from pursuing stem subjects which is a root cause of their under representation in those fields.
I have practical real world experience of this.

 

You just say "it's a fact" when all statistics and studies show otherwise.
 

 

Anyway, shouldn't you posting on those other women hating threads? I'm seeing a common theme here for quite a few of you.

 

What? You have no idea of me my opinion of women if you think I hate them.

[Fast Jimmy]

You just say "it's a fact" when all statistics and studies show otherwise.

I've provided lots of statsifcs and studies that state otherwise. Can you provide some citings for your facts?

[o Ventus]

http://www.dol.gov/_...malelaborforce/

 

https://www.american...ender-wage-gap/

 

https://www.american...ender-wage-gap/

 

http://mypage.iu.edu.../Cha_weeden.pdf

 

http://www.theatlant...em-back/275134/

 

http://www.payscale....ution-by-gender

 

I'm sill kek that what's-his-name thinks I hate women. I hate women with such furor that my A.P. United States history class in high school (which was taught to me by a woman) was one of my favorite subjects. In fact, I detest women so absolutely that I think the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot is one of the best games of the last console generation, and that Mirror's Edge is one of my favorite platformers of all time. Because I hate women. I abhor the thought of females so much that I play a female Inquisitor in DAI and several female characters in WoW, because I hate women. I'm such a violent, raging misogynist that Gamora is my favorite character from Guardians of the Galaxy, and that Elizabeth is my favorite character from Bioshock Infinite. There are people I hate who are women. I do not hate them BECAUSE they are women.

[Jorji Costava]

@o Ventus:

 

So I'm looking at a few of the links that you provided, and I'm not sure that they really help your case all that much. Here's a direct quote from the Baxter article: "Still, around 40 percent of the gender wage gap remains unexplained and is likely due, at least in part, to conscious or subconscious discrimination." The Glynn article makes the exact same claim: "According to Blau and Kahn, [the percentage of the wage gap not explainable in terms of occupation, educational attainment, experience, hours, etc.] is 41.1 percent. At least some of this is due to discrimination, even if it is subtle and subconscious." Here's a quote from the last paragraph from the study of Cha and Weeden:

 

Nevertheless, overwork rests on a social foundation that is itself highly gendered: employees who work long hours can only do so with the support of other household members, usually women, who shoulder the lion’s share of extra-work obligations (Acker 1990; Hochschild [1989] 2003; Lips 2013; Ridgeway 2011). Under this system, women are less likely than men to be able to work long hours or to enjoy the rising wage payoff to long hours. The emergence of long work hours as part of the “new normal” in some occupations, the professions and management in particular, builds on and perpetuates old forms of gender inequality.

 

I'm not saying this to sound smug or anything like that, but it just seems odd that you would cite a number of articles in defense of the claim that discrimination and sexism have nothing to do with the wage gap, only to have it turn out that three of the articles you cite make the exact opposite claim.

[o Ventus]

@o Ventus:

 

So I'm looking at a few of the links that you provided, and I'm not sure that they really help your case all that much. Here's a direct quote from the Baxter article: "Still, around 40 percent of the gender wage gap remains unexplained and is likely due, at least in part, to conscious or subconscious discrimination." The Glynn article makes the exact same claim: "According to Blau and Kahn, [the percentage of the wage gap not explainable in terms of occupation, educational attainment, experience, hours, etc.] is 41.1 percent. At least some of this is due to discrimination, even if it is subtle and subconscious." Here's a quote from the last paragraph from the study of Cha and Weeden:

 

 

 

I'm not saying this to sound smug or anything like that, but it just seems odd that you would cite a number of articles in defense of the claim that discrimination and sexism have nothing to do with the wage gap, only to have it turn out that three of the articles you cite make the exact opposite claim.

 

Yeah, and I also never claimed that sexism in prospective employers didn't exist. I know for a fact that it does.

 

However, that sexism won't determine the pay that a person gets compared to the pay of someone of the other gender. Not in any meaningful amount. An employer who pays a woman less than a man for the same work and for the same hours is in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and can be tried and charged for it. Someone might dislike women, but I'm sure they dislike having a criminal record even more. 

 

My other point is that there is a myriad of other reasons why women appear to make less money than men. Women generally pursue different lines of work than men and pursue different degrees to major in. For example, there were 1,025,882 Associate's degrees awarded in 2012. Of those 1,025,882, women were given 630,815. Of this 630,815, only 35,865 were for any kind of science(including both social sciences and natural sciences) or engineering major. The low number of "good" degrees compared to the "waste" degrees aside, there's no guarantee that majoring in a particular field will even land someone a job. People who make a big deal about the wage gap almost never (in my experience) take that into account. And it's not like women aren't graduating from college as much as men, since women have been earning more degrees than men for more than a decade.

 

http://www.nsf.gov/s.../pdf/tab4-1.pdf

[Sully13]

Only way i see round all this bolocks is equality of oppertunity.

remodeling the education system first and stoping all this.

"Ok we are only going to have special classes for girls." the Finish (Ithink its finland dont quote me.)

compleatly remodeled there system and went from the botom of the worlds schools to the 5th highest behind Japan ect. 

Quotas dont help either all you wind up with are unqualified people in jobs they are not suted for.

Yes its not a quick fix but in a generation or too i think it will work.

[Fast Jimmy]

So you post links to studies that agree there is a gender pay gap (regardless of what causes it) and also completely ignore the examples I supplied where women with exact same experience (in terms of time) and education get paid less...

You are arguing that something can't happen because there are laws against it. When it totally can happen as long as it's not blatantly obvious (and easily proven in court). The burden of proof is on the accuser in a logical judicial system, so unless you can prove that someone didn't hire you or is paying you less because of your gender, you don't have much of a case, civil or criminal.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a gender pay gap. With people who have equal experience and education. It's incontrovertible that it exists.

[Fast Jimmy]

Only way i see round all this bolocks is equality of oppertunity.
remodeling the education system first and stoping all this.
"Ok we are only going to have special classes for girls." the Finish (Ithink its finland dont quote me.)
compleatly remodeled there system and went from the botom of the worlds schools to the 5th highest behind Japan ect.
Quotas dont help either all you wind up with are unqualified people in jobs they are not suted for.
Yes its not a quick fix but in a generation or too i think it will work.

Gender segregation in classes improve test scores? That's odd. Same-sex schools like Catholic schools here in the states don't seem to enjoy that benefit. (Caveat - I know nothing about said Finnish classrooms, I'm asking for clarification).

[Billy-the-Squid]

Maybe so. Recent examples of younger women who are unmarried and without children show that they are making more money as a demographic:

http://content.time....2015274,00.html

This is due to women being more likely to graduate than men in today's market and that they are more likely to do more research for better paying jobs.


No, it is NOT crap. It exists. Whether or not it exists for reasons you think are valid or not is an entirely different discussion. You can argue that the Grand Canyon was caused by erosion from a former large waterway or by seismological activity, but you can't argue that it is a huge hole in the ground. You can't argue that women get paid less than men - it's pretty much a fact.

You can say men are more desireable to companies (or that, conversely, women are less desirable) or you can say women's life events, on an overall average, cause them to pass up opportunities that men would pursue that results in pay differences. Those are all valid debates, but they don't disprove that women get paid less.

 

 

Pfffffffffffffffffffffft. Semantics, you're arguing based on the most grossly broad application of the term.  A puddle and a reservoir are both technically depressions in the ground filled with water, argue that they're the same to anyone and they'd look at you like you're a ****** brain damaged retard. 

 

This is precisely the same faulty logic a feminist applies, men earn more than women, therefore pay equality needs to be addressed because there is a gender pay gap. While ignoring all the reasoning and facts which constitutes the determining factor that men are paid more as a gross average across the economy. 

 

**** it, lets apply that here. A Hedge Fund manager is paid in excess of £250,000 a year. A nurse is paid £20,000. The dustman who picks up the rubbish is earning minimum wage at £5 an hour. By the logic you've just applied there is a gender pay gap between men and women on average, clearly in favour of men. 

 

And as referenced above it is fairly obvious the reasoning without consideration of any underlying data or logic as to why these individuals are paid differently results in the stupidity of the ludicrous notion that there is a gender pay gap, based on one's gender. The crappy understanding of statistics which abounds has led to the belief that there is a gap in pay based on gender, when employment legislation precludes discrimination based on gender. As a consequence, the actual reasoning is ignored in preference of the headline which is bandied round everywhere "Gender Pay Gap!"

 

Like Hilary Clinton, twittering on about it. They've been earning equal pay for the last 40 years, what they're asking for now is whole sale wage redistribution or subsidisation of women's salary, to make up for the criteria which employers select employees. So what is in essence being asked for is special treatment, funnily enough based on gender. Take the maternity leave, take years of work for a family, work less hours to pick up the kids, work in a less demanding industry... but I'd like a bonus to make up for that, because there's a gender pay gap. 

 

****** ridiculous. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Pfffffffffffffffffffffft. Semantics, you're arguing based on the most grossly broad application of the term. A puddle and a reservoir are both technically depressions in the ground filled with water, argue that they're the same to anyone and they'd look at you like you're a ****** brain damaged retard.

This is precisely the same faulty logic a feminist applies, men earn more than women, therefore pay equality needs to be addressed because there is a gender pay gap. While ignoring all the reasoning and facts which constitutes the determining factor that men are paid more as a gross average across the economy.

**** it, lets apply that here. A Hedge Fund manager is paid in excess of £250,000 a year. A nurse is paid £20,000. The dustman who picks up the rubbish is earning minimum wage at £5 an hour. By the logic you've just applied there is a gender pay gap between men and women on average, clearly in favour of men.

And as referenced above it is fairly obvious the reasoning without consideration of any underlying data or logic as to why these individuals are paid differently results in the stupidity of the ludicrous notion that there is a gender pay gap, based on one's gender. The crappy understanding of statistics which abounds has led to the belief that there is a gap in pay based on gender, when employment legislation precludes discrimination based on gender. As a consequence, the actual reasoning is ignored in preference of the headline which is bandied round everywhere "Gender Pay Gap!"

Like Hilary Clinton, twittering on about it. They've been earning equal pay for the last 40 years, what they're asking for now is whole sale wage redistribution or subsidisation of women's salary, to make up for the criteria which employers select employees. So what is in essence being asked for is special treatment, funnily enough based on gender. Take the maternity leave, take years of work for a family, work less hours to pick up the kids, work in a less demanding industry... but I'd like a bonus to make up for that, because there's a gender pay gap.

****** ridiculous.

I'm not saying it is a problem that needs to be fixed (a different subject), I'm not saying it is 100% related to sexism (a different subject), I'm not saying feminists are right (a different subject) and I'm not saying there aren't very valid/logical reasons for men to make more (a different subject).

I'm saying there is a gender pay gap. To say differently means YOU are the one who is calling a puddle a reservoir.

[Sully13]

Gender segregation in classes improve test scores? That's odd. Same-sex schools like Catholic schools here in the states don't seem to enjoy that benefit. (Caveat - I know nothing about said Finnish classrooms, I'm asking for clarification).

WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY THAT?

nope i think i said Equality of oppertunity and reforming the school systmes. i said fek all about Gender segrigation other than ENDING IT. 

[Jorji Costava]

Yeah, and I also never claimed that sexism in prospective employers didn't exist. I know for a fact that it does.

 

Actually, you did. Fast Jimmy said (exact words), "Discrimination against women exists with regards to pay and career prospects. That is a fact." Your response was:

 

You just say "it's a fact" when all statistics and studies show otherwise.

 

When someone says, "Discrimination is a fact" and you respond by saying, "No it isn't," how else should this be taken except to mean that you deny the reality of workplace and hiring discrimination? Maybe you think this is quibbling over word choice, but if you're going to come out guns blazing with strong opinions about stuff, you'd better be very clear about stating what precisely those opinions are.

However, that sexism won't determine the pay that a person gets compared to the pay of someone of the other gender. Not in any meaningful amount. An employer who pays a woman less than a man for the same work and for the same hours is in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and can be tried and charged for it. Someone might dislike women, but I'm sure they dislike having a criminal record even more.

First of all, what exactly constitutes a 'meaningful' amount? That seems like a bit of a weasel word that will allow you to recast your thesis every time it is challenged. Second, the articles you just cited claimed that discrimination accounts for at least some of the the wage gap. Apparently, this means that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not ended wage discrimination. This shouldn't be too surprising: Laws against sexual harassment have not ended sexual harassment, laws against murder have not ended murder, etc. I don't see why things would be particularly different with regards to wage discrimination. Bringing criminal charges against your employer on grounds of violating the Equal Pay Act is an extremely high-risk proposition for any employee, and it wouldn't be particularly surprising even if most employees who do judge themselves victims of wage discrimination don't do it.

[Fast Jimmy]

WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY THAT?
nope i think i said Equality of oppertunity and reforming the school systmes. i said fek all about Gender segrigation other than ENDING IT.

Sorry... you had mentioned special classes for girls. I assumed that meant the girls would be in a class with only other girls?