Does anyone else not believe in feminism?
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.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
It refers to a paper by the IEA. So you'd need to track that down.
no, i don't need to do that as it isn't me making that assertion.
Here you go:
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/rese ... lic-policy
Reading the free publication at the moment.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well you sound pretty angry right now lol
not in the slightest. i don't ever even raise my voice in real life.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
It refers to a paper by the IEA. So you'd need to track that down.
no, i don't need to do that as it isn't me making that assertion.
Here you go:
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/rese ... lic-policy
Reading the free publication at the moment.
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?
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
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?
once again, you're not looking at it correctly. all of the factors you name were already accounted for before the 84 - 89% figure was calculated. you're trying to inlude the same factors twice. i can't really force you to understand the math, so i think i'll exit the debate.
also you have never really demonstrated any evidence that feminists are angry (lol). so i am exiting the debate as it is effectively pointless. many many misogynistic men make the same assertion that feminists are angry, but really they don't carry any more anger than any other group. feminists are often driven to try to change things, but that doesn't make them vengeful.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_0ko4njmc
Basically summarizes most of my views on this.
Aaaand
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More ... 0814472109
Summarizes the rest of my views on this, I suggest you read it.
I don't buy into any feminist-made statistical data anyway. I've heard numbers as ridiculous as "Women do 90% of the work in the world, but only earn 10% of the money" (HOW DO YOU EVEN MEASURE WORK?!?!).
Personally I will never buy into feminism because it implies literally changing thought patterns. In the LAW women are more privileged than men, they don't get drafted.
However, men might be slightly more likely to get more money. HOWEVER, women are much much more likely to get less jail time (60% less by statistics!). But hey, what are we going to do? Tell judges they have to train themselves to be unbiased toward men? Tell employers to value women more when considering promotions? People can make sexist decisions if they want, is it fair? No, but still. If the laws of a society are sexist, which they aren't - that's the problem.
It refers to a paper by the IEA. So you'd need to track that down.
no, i don't need to do that as it isn't me making that assertion.
Here you go:
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/rese ... lic-policy
Reading the free publication at the moment.
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?
Disadvantaged but not discriminated against based on gender.
Men are also disadvantaged in various other areas, especially when it comes to marriage and divorce. But you don't see us crying about it much.
Basically summarizes most of my views on this.
Aaaand
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More ... 0814472109
Summarizes the rest of my views on this, I suggest you read it.
I don't buy into any feminist-made statistical data anyway. I've heard numbers as ridiculous as "Women do 90% of the work in the world, but only earn 10% of the money" (HOW DO YOU EVEN MEASURE WORK?!?!).
Personally I will never buy into feminism because it implies literally changing thought patterns. In the LAW women are more privileged than men, they don't get drafted.
However, men might be slightly more likely to get more money. HOWEVER, women are much much more likely to get less jail time (60% less by statistics!). But hey, what are we going to do? Tell judges they have to train themselves to be unbiased toward men? Tell employers to value women more when considering promotions? People can make sexist decisions if they want, is it fair? No, but still. If the laws of a society are sexist, which they aren't - that's the problem.
Touche.
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?
once again, you're not looking at it correctly. all of the factors you name were already accounted for before the 84 - 89% figure was calculated. you're trying to inlude the same factors twice. i can't really force you to understand the math, so i think i'll exit the debate.
also you have never really demonstrated any evidence that feminists are angry (lol). so i am exiting the debate as it is effectively pointless. many many misogynistic men make the same assertion that feminists are angry, but really they don't carry any more anger than any other group. feminists are often driven to try to change things, but that doesn't make them vengeful.
Nah what I am saying is while some of the 11-16% is probably due to discrimination, some of it is probably due to factors they overlooked, factors one can't even measure scientifically. So my estimate of 5-10% of the loss being due to discrimination is reasonable. Though it's probably at the higher end of that or maybe even slightly above 10%.
I think it's dishonest when the 30% card is pulled out. The actual 'male privilege' in work is really more like 8% or maybe at most 13%. Which is still wrong, don't get me wrong! But women have privilege in other realms, such as the criminal justice system. If Casey Anthony was a man, for example, I'm pretty sure the jury would have sentenced her to death.
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.
Well you sound pretty angry right now lol
a person who politely disagrees with you in an internet debate is not necessarily angry, even if she is female.
Wrt. promotions: several studies have come out recently showing that women ask for less when they ask for promotions, and that they're less likely to ask in the first place because they're perceived as harpies and treated poorly when they do - even if they deserve the promotion/raise as much as the men who ask for them. Also, men generally receive raises/promotions after they start a family 'because they have a family to support,' (as if working women aren't supporting their families), and women are put on the back-burner, regardless of whether he or she is taking time off to support the kids.
Wrt. promotions: several studies have come out recently showing that women ask for less when they ask for promotions, and that they're less likely to ask in the first place because they're perceived as harpies and treated poorly when they do - even if they deserve the promotion/raise as much as the men who ask for them. Also, men generally receive raises/promotions after they start a family 'because they have a family to support,' (as if working women aren't supporting their families), and women are put on the back-burner, regardless of whether he or she is taking time off to support the kids.
I'm sorry Hyperlexian, I saw anger where it wasn't there.
Yes, the promotion thing is interesting. I also think women in general (on average) are less interested in risking conflict and that could be part of why they are less likely to ask for raises/promotions as well.
I think there's also a more benign side to this as well. Men are generally expected to spend a lot of the money they earn on their woman. I mean which sex is more likely to receive a $200 necklace from their significant other? lol
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
GenZ More Likely Than Boomers To Believe Feminism Harmful |
01 Feb 2024, 5:48 pm |
Poor Things is a male take on feminism |
Yesterday, 9:01 pm |