(May 25, 2016 at 4:51 am)Irrational Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 4:01 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Easy way to debunk this: Are jobs advertised with one pay rate for women and one for men? If not why not? If I could get away with paying women less for the same work why would I ever employ men?

Well, would that work if, for example, an employer subconsciously or consciously associated women with poorer work performance/quality than men?

I think you're bring Irrational. Grasping at straws as they say. I don't live in a theocratic country; women get paid the same amount per hour worked if the are doing the same position as a man. You make it sound as though women are getting paid a differently hourly rate for the exact same job.

If you want to talk about discrimination let's talk about the lack of paternity leave. My country assumes fathers do not want to stay at home to look after children like mothers do. What about the lack of baby changing facilities in male toilets?

(May 25, 2016 at 10:35 am)pool the great Wrote: Well why don't you use the "evidence" you posted which apparently conducted a survey consisting of a few hundred people and tell me the probability of my boss being unconsciously discriminated against females,taking into consideration the billions of people that live on earth?  

You my brother, I'm getting more of a sister vibe but hey what the hell, need to stop generalizing people and start treating them as individuals. You yourself said that you were against gender stereotyping but you have no problem stereotyping the whole male population as discriminators against women.

Furthermore your conclusions from that study are falsely arrived at.
I'll tell you why, imagine I conducted a survey consisting of a few hundred women from my community questioning whether they are straight or gay. If the majority of the women responded as being straight, do you think it'd be reasonable to conclude from the study that women are straight? Because that is the analogical equivalent of how you arrived at your conclusions with the study you posted.

The whole point of these studies is so you can make inferences to the general population that the sample is supposed to represent. The population of interest in the case of this particular study is, of course, academics hiring students for positions in the lab and not employers in general, but then again, if that's really what you just focused on, then you're being either intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. Because the whole fucking point is that subconscious gender discrimination exists, and if it exists in academic settings, then this suggests it's not implausible that this may be the case in other similar work-related settings.

By the way, according to this study, BOTH male and female academics displayed this subconscious form of discrimination. So had you read the article properly, you would've noticed that instead of accusing me of charging the whole male population as discriminators against women.

Furthermore, it wasn't just a matter of conducting surveys. You had better reread, at least, the procedure section in that article. Make sure you click on the full text tab. This was more an experiment assessing group differences, with random participant assignment to one of two groups.

Make of it what you will. That's just one study. There are more, but I'm not going to go around and post a whole list for you to examine, especially when I sense that you're not exactly open to being corrected by these studies.

(May 25, 2016 at 11:00 am)Irrational Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 10:35 am)pool the great Wrote: Well why don't you use the "evidence" you posted which apparently conducted a survey consisting of a few hundred people and tell me the probability of my boss being unconsciously discriminated against females,taking into consideration the billions of people that live on earth?  

You my brother, I'm getting more of a sister vibe but hey what the hell, need to stop generalizing people and start treating them as individuals. You yourself said that you were against gender stereotyping but you have no problem stereotyping the whole male population as discriminators against women.

Furthermore your conclusions from that study are falsely arrived at.
I'll tell you why, imagine I conducted a survey consisting of a few hundred women from my community questioning whether they are straight or gay. If the majority of the women responded as being straight, do you think it'd be reasonable to conclude from the study that women are straight? Because that is the analogical equivalent of how you arrived at your conclusions with the study you posted.

The whole point of these studies is so you can make inferences to the general population that the sample is supposed to represent. The population of interest in the case of this particular study is, of course, academics hiring students for positions in the lab and not employers in general, but then again, if that's really what you just focused on, then you're being either intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. Because the whole fucking point is that subconscious gender discrimination exists, and if it exists in academic settings, then this suggests it's not implausible that this may be the case in other similar work-related settings.

By the way, according to this study, BOTH male and female academics displayed this subconscious form of discrimination. So had you read the article properly, you would've noticed that instead of accusing me of charging the whole male population as discriminators against women.

Furthermore, it wasn't just a matter of conducting surveys. You had better reread, at least, the procedure section in that article. Make sure you click on the full text tab. This was more an experiment assessing group differences, with random participant assignment to one of two groups.

Make of it what you will. That's just one study. There are more, but I'm not going to go around and post a whole list for you to examine, especially when I sense that you're not exactly open to being corrected by these studies.

Quick question,
You want to move a huge box.
On the one hand you have a huge bulky man.
On the other you have a lean sexy female.
Who do you assign this job to?

(May 25, 2016 at 10:56 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 4:51 am)Irrational Wrote: Well, would that work if, for example, an employer subconsciously or consciously associated women with poorer work performance/quality than men?

I think you're bring Irrational. Grasping at straws as they say. I don't live in a theocratic country; women get paid the same amount per hour worked if the are doing the same position as a man. You make it sound as though women are getting paid a differently hourly rate for the exact same job.

That's not me saying it. That's the statistics pointing to something like that. Of course, unless you have a better explanation for the unaccounted for portion of difference in pay between both genders. Do you?

Quote:If you want to talk about discrimination let's talk about the lack of paternity leave. My country assumes fathers do not want to stay at home to look after children like mothers do. What about the lack of baby changing facilities in male toilets?

By all means, make a new thread about that then. You think I'm for lack of paternity leave?

In my field of work I see people getting paid based on skills not gender. I believe though in some parts gender discrimination exists, it's not as big a deal as feminists make it out to be. Due to how we evolved, both genders have adapted and are suited for different roles in the workforce, and thus have different amount of opportunities. Sure a woman can do heavy lifting and construction work, but in general a man is more efficient. Similarly In a hr or managerial position women generally do better than men. But if there are jobs for a hundred construction workers, there'd barely be one opening for a manager.

Too many people too casually dismiss the gender pay gap. The Gender Pay gap is a real problem, like it or not. And it's one we need to deal with. We're not going to go away on it, and we absolutely shouldn't. Just like men aren't going to go away on men getting harsher prison sentences than women, and they shouldn't. One could, of course, just as casually dismiss that issue as well. But it shouldn't be so casually dismissed, just as the gender pay gap should not be so casually dismissed.

There are preconceived gender biases that cause things like harsher sentencing for men, and lower pay for women. Those same biases also present themselves in any number of issues that face both men and women. To so casually dismiss any of them is to do your own gender, as well as the opposite gender a great disservice.

(May 25, 2016 at 6:49 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Too many people too casually dismiss the gender pay gap. The Gender Pay gap is a real problem, like it or not. And it's one we need to deal with. We're not going to go away on it, and we absolutely shouldn't. Just like men aren't going to go away on men getting harsher prison sentences than women, and they shouldn't. One could, of course, just as casually dismiss that issue as well. But it shouldn't be so casually dismissed, just as the gender pay gap should not be so casually dismissed.

There are preconceived gender biases that cause things like harsher sentencing for men, and lower pay for women. Those same biases also present themselves in any number of issues that face both men and women. To so casually dismiss any of them is to do your own gender, as well as the opposite gender a great disservice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-p...lete-myth/

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-...yth-2011-3

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/06/ther...qual-work/

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true...o-podcast/


I'm starting to see what the confusion is regarding the subject among many people.

"Gender pay gap" is real and fake, at the same time.
It is real because of the confusing way people interpret evidence.

How a typical person thinks about the subject goes like this:
Is there evidence that shows that women earn less than men? Yes.
Therefore women are discriminated against.
I mean, why wouldn't they be discriminated against? There is clear evidence that shows women earn less than men for the same job.
(This line of reasoning is closely interrelated with the reasoning behind The "Stalin was an atheist" argument.)


Now let me explain why it is fake and misleading:

Imagine a study showing that there are less people from the religion of Buddhism and Islam in top managerial positions?
Does this prove that there is a discrimination against these religious groups?

Did you know that there are less black people with higher education?
Does this prove black people are discriminated against in educational institutions?

Imagine a study showing less to no CEO's of software companies working part time for Mc Donalds.
Does this prove CEO's are discriminated against at Mc Donalds?

Imagine a study showing less black people having pools in their house as opposed to white people or Asians.
Does this prove that pool companies are discriminated against black people?

Imagine a study showing less islamists hired as pilots.
Does this show that airline companies are discriminated against islamists?

The problem with these studies that proves wage gap exists is that although they show that women earn less compared to men, it provides 0 correlation as gender being the only factor that affects the earning income. If it did then there is evidence for gender wage gap, which is why I have repeatedly explained that there is no gender wage gap as it correlates with discrimination and there has been no evidence presented to prove that discrimination, although there is a gender earnings gap since there has been evidence provided to prove that there is a variation in the amount of money a particular gender earn in their work.

The same way if a study showed that little to no CEO's of software companies are working in Mc Donalds, it only shows what it says, it provides no evidence that shows correlation for CEO'S being in that position being the only factor that plays into them not working at Mc Donalds. If it did then there is evidence for CEO'S being discriminated at Mc Donalds.


Whenever people are asked for evidence for Gender wage gap they provide evidence for gender earnings gap.

To prove gender earnings gap you have to provide evidence that women earn less than men.

To prove gender wage gap you have to provide evidence that women earn less than men AND evidence for gender being the only factor that affects this variation in income.

Logic like this comes so natural to me I didn't realize some people may not actually "get" it as much as I did. That was the reason why I was very frustrated and annoyed before when discussing this subject because in my mind people know this is fake but are acting as though they don't, my responses were based on those assumptions and thus caused so much confusion.
I hope people have started "getting" it now, if not I'll explain even further. You just have to ask. :')

I earn too much.

(May 25, 2016 at 3:41 am)Irrational Wrote:

(May 24, 2016 at 12:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Not to sound like pool, but an earnings gap and a wage gap are not the same thing. Yes, discrimination occurs, and yes some people get away with it, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence that sexual wage discrimination is still a systemic problem in Western society, or that it is a major contributor to the earnings gap.

It's a matter of coming up with the most plausible explanation for the unaccounted difference in wage/earnings between both genders. The evidence is that there is, controlling for most other factors that have been considered to contribute to gender differences in this context, still a difference.

Even if that's the case, what you're describing is an earnings gap, not a wage gap. If there were a wage gap, then we would be able to look at the actual, by-the-hour wages and very directly see a disparity between what men make and what women make. Instead, you have people looking at earnings for various periods of time, accounting for as many non-discrimination-related factors as they can, then naming discrimination as the "most plausible" cause for the gap they can't explain. To me, that seems to be an argument from ignorance, once it all shakes out.


Besides, if men and women's wages are the same for the same jobs, but women's average earnings are less, and the reason for that is discrimination, that means the men are paying the women the same wage and then finding some sneaky way to somehow make sure they still don't make as much money in the long run. That is some conspiracy-theory-level illogic right there, not to mention the "how would that even work?" part.

(May 23, 2016 at 1:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I suppose frugal businesses should only hire women. Hiring men would just be a waste of money.

But but - subconscious Discrimination