Census Says Women Equal To Men In Advanced Degrees

Post Reply New Topic

Again the stats were from the US. There is a gender paygap here as well, however its due to among other things choice of profession. What the latest and most detailed survey done in this country showed was that women and men holding the same positions, with the same level of experience, education, performing similar quality and quantities of work were in fact close enough to be called equal. There were cases where women made more than men and vice versa based on indidual factors.

In the survey I mentioned, they did it on a company level, because different companies have different levels of pay, there are differences based on location within the country, since salaries are generally higher in cities and lower in rural areas.

You also need to consider with the 80c on the dollar that while the growth started in the 80s, the 50% is a recent milestone. So logic would dictate that in order to see how this influences the pay gap, one would have to wait until the genders have evened out in a work environment as well.

If the degrees themselves were the reason for parts of the pay gap, it follows that you'd need to hold on when it comes to action until you've seen the effect of the 50-50 degree distribution. Furthermore, one would have to account for different degree choices, for instance a master degree in engineering will most of the time make more than a master in literature, so the elected field also plays a big role here.

Gosh you like so didn't notice my last post TM where I agreed with you oh freakin shock right

No really, I agree with some of the things you say and I'm sure you agree with some of the things I say. I never saw the need to hate someone you're debating with based on a single topic as most people are not identified by that one topic.

There is no doubt that the concept of "trickle down/supply side economics" or as George H. Bush called it "Voodoo economics" is problematic. Capitalism itself is such in nature that capital is magnetic so the more capital you have the more you get.

However, this is not the problem the fundamental problem is the U.S tax system and more specifically corporate and capital gains tax. The reality is that while corporate tax in the U.S is at roughly 25% if I remember correctly most companies pay 7% or less due to loopholes. Furthermore, they are not taxed on overseas profit until that profit is taken back into the US, so that makes it more beneficial for the company to invest overseas rather than in America.

I tend to think that capital gains tax needs to be lower than income tax rate due to the increased risk associated with capital investment. Just as an incentive for people to invest their leftover income since it tends to give returns greater than that of bank deposits but with associated risks.

The far right have made it to were they don't have to invest in America. Which I disagree with but I am incline to agree with you on everything mostly I agree with this,

I tend to think that capital gains tax needs to be lower than income tax rate due to the increased risk associated with capital investment. Just as an incentive for people to invest their leftover income since it tends to give returns greater than that of bank deposits but with associated risks.[/quote]

You and your stupid Gish Gallop.

A pile of BS arguments does not suddenly become a good argument. In fact, quite the opposite. 100 terrible arguments are worse than 100 times a bad argument. Because it takes a small mistake to believe in a stupid argument, but a terribly low intelligence level to believe in 100 stupid arguments.

Stop trying to pull out ideas from a creationist play book. I hereby declare you a clown that has to be mocked rather than dealt with until you stop posting that image.

Clown.

[posted from other thread]

I cannot read a lot of what that says (sorry, I have poor eyesight...) but things that catch my eye are:

Women often cite men's incapability to commit. Yet 75% of divorces are initiated by women
Commitment does not just mean having a wedding ring and living together. If the man is not emotionally and physically committed to the relationship but is quite comfortable where he is, of course he is not going to initiate a divorce!

Women have unrealistic expectations of men's appearance
And men do not? I won't pretend to speak for the entirety of any group, but I think that is a pretty normal human thing. The data is also gathered from OkCupid... did they expect anything else?

I also have no way to validate most of this "data" which appears to be little more than a jpg on somebody's tinypic account. The sources I can make out include the NY times, OkCupid, some blogs; these being ones I do not take too seriously... However I am able to make out whitehouse.gov which is official. I took the time to peruse the document cited from them which includes quite a bit of data on how women are more likely to live in poverty than men, conveniently left out of that jpg.. along with all other contradictory information to its intent

We're actually well on our way to surpassing men in advanced degrees, judging by the statistics on college admissions and entry. Which ... I think is actually a problem (and since from my screen name it is very obvious I'm female, don't faint). Ideally I'd like to keep it proportional.

Here is part of what I wrote earlier for another thread but didn't have a chance to post:

The men's issue I think most needs to be brought to the forefront is education for boys. University enrollments are swinging 60% female, and that is not because they are biased towards women, but because boys are not excelling in grades K-12 at the level girls are. There are many, many developmental diffierences between young girls and boys, with boys generally developing over a longer and more drawn out period, which is a problem when the schools push more and more developmental skills into lower grade levels. A 6th grader today must be extremely organized, the grading emphasizes organization, but the average 11 year old boy is not developmentally ready for it (take one look at a middle school and you realize you are seeing girls that look and act and like women, but boys that look and act like ... boys). Eventually it all evens out, but by the time it does the boys have taken a pretty big shot to their self-esteem and no longer see themselves as capable students with plans for college. The attempts by certain women to raise this issue is getting some push back from other feminists, given how long and hard they fought for girls to thrive in school, but I think we should all want to reach a balance that is as fair as possible for both genders. Because, as the old saying goes, a mind is a terrible thing to waste - any mind. As a mom with a teenage boy and a pre-teen daughter, I wanted to see equal opportunities and support, not bias either way. The book: "The Trouble with Boys" by Peg Tyre. Extremely well researched.

As Ms. Tyre pointed out when I went to hear her speak, women who are not concerned about this gap need to ask one simple question: if it goes as trended, who are their daughter's going to marry? Most women aren't comfortable marrying men that are significantly less educated and intelligent than they are, and unless we all want to give up our option to stay home with our children and become the family breadwinner instead (which is great as a choice but not something most women want to see as the requirement), that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Have fun pulling all that apart, I really can't continue in this thread. Work deadline, ya know. Although I do hope I wrote what I meant, instead of making errors, as I so often do when I'm tired ...

You made very good points that I have to agree with no need to pull what you said apart I enjoyed reading your post.

A pile of statistics against your point of view does not have to be a Gish Gallop. Unless you are unable to see the difference between such an argument in a live debate and a web debate where you can take as much time as you like to check the sources, the statistics themselves and come up with your own argument. Presenting such statistics is merely a one-shot refutation of 80% of your sides argument in one go rather than doing it over 10 posts.

All you're really doing is saying "I cannot refute these statistics, therefore I declare them invalid" its dishonest.

yet someone refuted them in the post afterwards making your current defense look errornous to say the least.

cherry picking articles for a "bulletin board" like that will never give an accurate view of anything, because its based on articles written by people who have no reason to limit their bias.

The person was quite open about not checking every source, some of them are dodgier like Okcupid, some are times articles with outside sources and quite a few are government statistics. That they aren't made to be objective is a totally different matter since I didn't realize being objective was the point in a discussion where you're arguing one side of the issue.

Here are the sources:

Impact on our children:

U.S department of health and human services - Office of income security.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
Surviving the breakup by Joan B. Kelly.
U.S General Accounting Office.
US. D.H.H.S Bureau of census.
Center for disease control.
Criminal Justice and Behavior Vol.14
National Principals association report on the state of high schools.
U.S department of Justice.
Fulton country Georgia jail populations and Texas department of corrections.
"Marriage: The safest place for women and children." by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A Johnsen, based on data from the U.S Department of Justice.
"Growing up in Canada" National longitudinal survey of Children and Youth" by the Human resources development Canada and Statistics Canada.

Women prefer men who are already in relationships:
Ny Times article based on data from The Journal of Experimental psychology. Research done and article written by Jessica Parker and Melissa Burkley from the University of Oklahoma.

Divorce and Fatherhood statistics:
U.S Department of Health and human services, Office of income security policy.
U.S General accounting office.
U.S Bureau of Census.

Gender pay-gap.
Consad under contract with the U.S department of labor.
Whitehouse.gov
Business Licensing Authority. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162- ... lete-myth/)

Spending:
Inc.com written by 2 women running an agency that specializes in marketing towards the female demographic.

Sexual behavior:
THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF EARLY SEXUAL ACTIVITY
AND MULTIPLE SEXUAL PARTNERS AMONG WOMEN:
A BOOK OF CHARTS
ROBERT E. RECTOR
KIRK A. JOHNSON, PH.D.
LAUREN R.

I will admit that I find it really funny that out of a total of 21 total sources in this article, the 1 from Okcupid (in relation to appearance expectations in online dating) and the one from NYtimes which was based on the Oklahoma study, were the ones that people pounced on rather than dealing with the 19 or so academic or government sources. I guess it shows that one shouldn't use sources that people's perception dictate aren't valid. Kind of like how its wrong to use wikipedia as a source, even if the data is a direct quote from an Academic or Government related study that can be independently verified. Also, I didn't have much of a problem finding all these sources in under 30 minutes.

As for taking things out of context, I find it extremely funny that my statistics are called under such scrutiny whereas statistics from obviously feminist sources are accepted without question.

Last edited by TM on 08 Apr 2012, 10:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

the validity of data requires at least a degree of objectivity, without such data arguing is pretty much pointless.

the point i am making is that the more reputable source ie, the one from the whitehouse is taken out of context, the others have very little credibility.

Exactly. The best source (imo) on the jpg was definitely taken out of context, all contradictory data ignored- this throws the credibility of the entire page into doubt. I almost guarantee an in depth search into all the sources will show similar patterns

You do realize that such piece of data would be complete unconnected to the actual heading of that topic? Furthermore that the women in this case were women with children, which funnily enough correlates with more single mothers being more likely to work part time or to be unemployed and lack formal education.

Did you perhaps also notice that female labor market participation was lower, that women on average work less than their male counterparts, that more women work part time jobs. Furthermore, when we account for non-participation in the labor markets and overall earnings by single-mother households, most of the workers did make enough to remain over the poverty line.

This lends credence to the conclusion that the reason for more women living in poverty is non-participation in the labor market or less than 100% participation in the labor market by that person. Which is completely unrelated to a gender pay-gap. Stay on topic please.

Referencing one of the documents you cited as evidence (well, a document cited by the jpg you cite as evidence) is off topic? I only mentioned one specific example (women living in poverty), there is plenty of other data in there damning to what the jpg was trying to assert. In any case your post here does not seem to be related in any way to the Whitehouse.gov document which is the best one available from that jpg, and furthermore most of the data in this document was glossed over in favor of cherry picking

I also doubt very much you took the time that I took to investigate the sources of that jpg before you or HDM bothered posting it. Of course you didn't! You are only doing that now that someone else bothered