Does anyone else not believe in feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

you didn't read the conclusions correctly. they took those factors into account and still found the 20% discrepancy. and the second set of links wasn't related to law careers - they covered many industries.

still waiting to see a study that supports your assertions.

you seem to be saying that women become feminists because they are vengeful and angry, if you are drawing a parallel with the KKK.

KKK people being racist != feminists being angry and vengeful

considering that about a third of american women identify as feminist, it is illogical to conclude that they are mostly angry or vengeful.... if 1/3 of women that you have met were angry or vengeful you probably wouldn't ever be able to converse nicely with them. and considering that the femisists in this thread (male and female) are able to talk about these issues without diaplying anger or vengefulness towards males, your conclusion is obviously quite flawes.

your "observation" has no basis in reality. so a generalisation wouldn't make any sense.

It studied female graduates of a law school. And yes, the 20% discrepancy, while taking in many factors, could have missed something, or one of the variables could have been wrong. They did not conclude that most of it was attributable to male privilege.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... study.html

^Read this.

there's no link to the actual study. it's an article in an disreputable newpaper.

I wasn't actually comparing feminists to the KKK, I was just saying that generalizations of groups that are based on beliefs and preferences make some degree of sense. You can't compare that kind of generalization to racism.

I would say about 1/3 of people are angry and vengeful. Not just women. And a lot of feminists are men too, who apologize for being male. But no you're right, most feminists are nice people overall, it's just undeniable that a good deal of them have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to men. With the things they believe in why wouldn't they? I'd be pretty mad if I believed that half of the human race inherently believed I was not as good as them because I had a different kind of genitalia.

It refers to a paper by the IEA. So you'd need to track that down.

how is it "undeniable that a good deal of them have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to men"? you're drawing assumptions here that are based on absolutely nothing. perhaps you think it would be logical that they would bfeel that way because YOU would be angry if you were in their shoes, but anyone who knows feminists in real life can attest that they aren't feeling (or acting) vengeful against men.

and if you expect me to take a study seriously, you can go track it down. the onus is on you, just like the onus was on me for my evidence.

no, i don't need to do that as it isn't me making that assertion.

here's another study. this one is Canadian:

http://grad.econ.ubc.ca/kefoley/W07360/ ... drolet.pdf

what they are saying is that even accounting for all factors they could consider (i.e. children, part-time work, occupations), men still earn more than women when doing the same jobs.

Here you go:
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/rese ... lic-policy

Reading the free publication at the moment.

Damn now I've been reading all these studies, trying to make a conclusion. I still don't think we should rush to the discrimination theory, from what I've read, it's established statistical fact that women make less money on average than men, and that a large portion of that (anywhere from 30 to 70 percent) is unexplainable by factors of work habits. That doesn't mean necessarily that discrimination is the cause though, I would guess there is some kind of compounding effect of the factors that are accounted for, plus a small element of discrimination. But that's just my guess, I haven't really made up my mind on to exactly the cause.

But anyway, I agree with you in premise that women to some degree get the short end of the stick in the workforce. Just not in all of life.

Well you sound pretty angry right now lol

Just wondering Hyperlexian, what you think of this quote from your source as an explanation to the pay gap?

The gender pay gap is smallest amongst single, never married men and women (96%) and highest
among married men and women (77%) (Table 6). The smaller pay gap between single, never married
men and women may be partly related to age as well as to the fact that they have similar commitments
to the labour force and to household responsibilities.

Doing the math:

women’s average hourly wage rate is about 84%-89% of the
men’s average. Unlike other studies, controls for work history and job-related responsibilities are used.
Gender differences in full-year, full-time work experience explain a substantial proportion of the gender
wage gap — roughly 12%. Gender differences in the opportunity to supervise and to perform certain
tasks account for about 5% of the gender wage gap. Yet despite the long list of productivity related
factors, roughly one half to three-quarters of the gender wage gap cannot be explained.

So the actual difference is 11-16%. I said that discrimination likely might cause women to earn 5-10% less than men on average, than the remainder can be explained by differences in work patterns, child rearing, etc, which isn't that unreasonable given the actual total rate of pay per hour is it?

not in the slightest. i don't ever even raise my voice in real life.

it's interesting because the author attempts to explain the gap, and in doing so he highlights the inequalities inherent in the current system. the author takes certain leaps and assigns figures to such variables as gender employer choices, salary negotiation tactics, the promotion of men over women, reduced hourly wages for part-time work, lack of financially viable child care options, etc. - all of which reinforce the fact that women are disadvatntaged in the work force.

so the author may believe he has explained the gender gap, but it doesn't make it excusable because it still points to an unfair inequality. thanks for linking it. did you read the articles i linked?