Census Says Women Equal To Men In Advanced Degrees
08 Apr 2012, 12:28 pm
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Oodain wrote:
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.
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
When the statistical data and discussion was on the gender paygap, citing a statistic about living in poverty is not relevant unless it can be said to be a direct result of said gender paygap. It's more or less a way to change the topic from said gender pay gap to people living in poverty.
It would be like bringing up CEO pay in fortune 500 companies in a discussion in regards to the bankruptcy rate of small businesses.
Oh and, with your statement of "of course you didn't" I suppose my statement in the other thread of you being a poor liar has been prove true.
08 Apr 2012, 12:30 pm
TM wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Oodain wrote:
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.
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
When the statistical data and discussion was on the gender paygap, citing a statistic about living in poverty is not relevant unless it can be said to be a direct result of said gender paygap. It's more or less a way to change the topic from said gender pay gap to people living in poverty.
It would be like bringing up CEO pay in fortune 500 companies in a discussion in regards to the bankruptcy rate of small businesses.
Oh and, with your statement of "of course you didn't" I suppose my statement in the other thread of you being a poor liar has been prove true.
I wonder if you are capable of more than a few posts without feeling the need to insult me? You must not have a good argument if you are scraping the bottom of the barrel like this. We both know you didn't investigate any of the sources and neither did HDM, but were more than happy to trumpet them until someone bothered. No credibility = posting s**t that looks like it supports your views without even checking it. Dishonest and disingenuous wee man you are
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
08 Apr 2012, 12:34 pm
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Oodain wrote:
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.
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
When the statistical data and discussion was on the gender paygap, citing a statistic about living in poverty is not relevant unless it can be said to be a direct result of said gender paygap. It's more or less a way to change the topic from said gender pay gap to people living in poverty.
It would be like bringing up CEO pay in fortune 500 companies in a discussion in regards to the bankruptcy rate of small businesses.
Oh and, with your statement of "of course you didn't" I suppose my statement in the other thread of you being a poor liar has been prove true.
I wonder if you are capable of more than a few posts without feeling the need to insult me? You must not have a good argument if you are scraping the bottom of the barrel like this. We both know you didn't investigate any of the sources and neither did HDM, but were more than happy to trumpet them until someone bothered. No credibility = posting sh** that looks like it supports your views without even checking it. Dishonest and disingenuous wee man you are
You were the one who accused me of not reading what I was posting, I just so happened to figure that if I could read it everyone else could as well. When you then state as if it was fact that I didn't, you are lying in the textbook definition of the word. It wasn't meant as an insult, just stating that you are lying as you are in the post I just quoted. You also pile on with insults whereas I pointed out that in accordance with my accusations in the previous thread, you had now posted a very poor quality lie.
08 Apr 2012, 12:37 pm
TM wrote:
You were the one who accused me of not reading what I was posting, I just so happened to figure that if I could read it everyone else could as well. When you then state as if it was fact that I didn't, you are lying in the textbook definition of the word. It wasn't meant as an insult, just stating that you are lying as you are in the post I just quoted.
More lies. I did not say you did not read the jpg, I said you did not check the sources that it offered
TM wrote:
You also pile on with insults whereas I pointed out that in accordance with my accusations in the previous thread, you had now posted a very poor quality lie.
This is the second thread where you or your circle jerk of buddies have started insulting me. I have tried to maintain a level of civility but you and your angsty manchild friends make it somewhat difficult. I do nothing more than defend myself
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Last edited by Vigilans on 08 Apr 2012, 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
08 Apr 2012, 12:41 pm
That was HDM who posted that to begin with anyway, all you did was ask people to reply to it, no? I am sure you could find better data on your own
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
08 Apr 2012, 12:41 pm
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
You were the one who accused me of not reading what I was posting, I just so happened to figure that if I could read it everyone else could as well. When you then state as if it was fact that I didn't, you are lying in the textbook definition of the word. It wasn't meant as an insult, just stating that you are lying as you are in the post I just quoted.
More lies. I did not say you did not read the jpg, I said you did not check the sources that it offered
"Read it" also includes reading the sources of data. If I said that I read a textbook would you assume that I also checked the footnotes and references? I don't post things without checking references and sources, ever.
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
You also pile on with insults whereas I pointed out that in accordance with my accusations in the previous thread, you had now posted a very poor quality lie.
This is the second thread where you or your circle jerk of buddies have started insulting me. I have tried to maintain a level of civility but you and your angsty manchild friends make it somewhat difficult. I do nothing more than defend myself
This seems to be a chicken and egg thing, because I tend to remember your side being the one that dropped the level of discourse down to sarcasm and ridicule. Once those statistics got introduced the climate got quite hostile and we stopped discussing the topic and your circle of femmes went on a "let's ignore those statistics" since they are not in our favor and just attack the people posting them.
08 Apr 2012, 12:45 pm
TM wrote:
"Read it" also includes reading the sources of data. If I said that I read a textbook would you assume that I also checked the footnotes and references? I don't post things without checking references and sources, ever.
If you were going to make broad and all encompassing statements based off of that textbook? Absolutely. You did not post it to begin with, HDM did, and he did not check the references. The responsibility was not yours to check them since you did not post it to begin with, but you did support this jpg and until I opened the discussion about its sources nobody did, especially not "your side" since any contradictory data in the sources does not look good for you (which is why the maker of that jpg left it out to begin with!)
TM wrote:
This seems to be a chicken and egg thing, because I tend to remember your side being the one that dropped the level of discourse down to sarcasm and ridicule.
Then you have a poor memory. My own entrance into that thread was greeted by insults. I am sure Ragtime et al will try to say any disagreement is disrespect but in the real world it does not work that way, and the people who matter know exactly how it went down. I do not derive any pleasure from insulting people and I will only do so if I am returning the favor
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
08 Apr 2012, 12:53 pm
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
"Read it" also includes reading the sources of data. If I said that I read a textbook would you assume that I also checked the footnotes and references? I don't post things without checking references and sources, ever.
If you were going to make broad and all encompassing statements based off of that textbook? Absolutely. You did not post it to begin with, HDM did, and he did not check the references. The responsibility was not yours to check them since you did not post it to begin with, but you did support this jpg and until I opened the discussion about its sources nobody did, especially not "your side" since any contradictory data in the sources does not look good for you (which is why the maker of that jpg left it out to begin with!)
My logic was that I checked the sources before I myself posted it. I have no idea of he checked the sources though. The reason why I saw discussing the sources as unneeded was that they were clearly listed so anyone who read it and had an issue with the sources could locate and judge the data themselves.
"Contradictory data" is a bad thing, however the data that more females live in poverty does not contradict the data on the gender pay gap if the reason for more females living in poverty is unrelated or largely unrelated to the gender pay gap. Unless the gender pay gap is defined as "Only pertaining to the overall wage earnings attributed to each gender regardless of other factors".
In essence, if you have 10 men and 10 women, out of those 10 men work 100% and 8 women work 100% with the remaining 2 women working 50% and they are all paid the same, the men would make more than the women but for reasons completely unrelated to actual pay.
08 Apr 2012, 1:00 pm
TM wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
"Read it" also includes reading the sources of data. If I said that I read a textbook would you assume that I also checked the footnotes and references? I don't post things without checking references and sources, ever.
If you were going to make broad and all encompassing statements based off of that textbook? Absolutely. You did not post it to begin with, HDM did, and he did not check the references. The responsibility was not yours to check them since you did not post it to begin with, but you did support this jpg and until I opened the discussion about its sources nobody did, especially not "your side" since any contradictory data in the sources does not look good for you (which is why the maker of that jpg left it out to begin with!)
My logic was that I checked the sources before I myself posted it. I have no idea of he checked the sources though. The reason why I saw discussing the sources as unneeded was that they were clearly listed so anyone who read it and had an issue with the sources could locate and judge the data themselves.
"Contradictory data" is a bad thing, however the data that more females live in poverty does not contradict the data on the gender pay gap if the reason for more females living in poverty is unrelated or largely unrelated to the gender pay gap. Unless the gender pay gap is defined as "Only pertaining to the overall wage earnings attributed to each gender regardless of other factors".
In essence, if you have 10 men and 10 women, out of those 10 men work 100% and 8 women work 100% with the remaining 2 women working 50% and they are all paid the same, the men would make more than the women but for reasons completely unrelated to actual pay.
Well that's it- I do have an issue with the sources. Well, not exactly with them, but how they were interpreted by the maker of that jpg. btw I only offered the women in poverty as a single example. Besides the sources I also took issue with a few of the headlines such as the one about commitment which I found supremely disingenuous and misleading. Overall I find that jpg misleading and I hope you can agree that a better example can be offered. I'm certain you yourself could find it
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
08 Apr 2012, 1:23 pm
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
TM wrote:
"Read it" also includes reading the sources of data. If I said that I read a textbook would you assume that I also checked the footnotes and references? I don't post things without checking references and sources, ever.
If you were going to make broad and all encompassing statements based off of that textbook? Absolutely. You did not post it to begin with, HDM did, and he did not check the references. The responsibility was not yours to check them since you did not post it to begin with, but you did support this jpg and until I opened the discussion about its sources nobody did, especially not "your side" since any contradictory data in the sources does not look good for you (which is why the maker of that jpg left it out to begin with!)
My logic was that I checked the sources before I myself posted it. I have no idea of he checked the sources though. The reason why I saw discussing the sources as unneeded was that they were clearly listed so anyone who read it and had an issue with the sources could locate and judge the data themselves.
"Contradictory data" is a bad thing, however the data that more females live in poverty does not contradict the data on the gender pay gap if the reason for more females living in poverty is unrelated or largely unrelated to the gender pay gap. Unless the gender pay gap is defined as "Only pertaining to the overall wage earnings attributed to each gender regardless of other factors".
In essence, if you have 10 men and 10 women, out of those 10 men work 100% and 8 women work 100% with the remaining 2 women working 50% and they are all paid the same, the men would make more than the women but for reasons completely unrelated to actual pay.
Well that's it- I do have an issue with the sources. Well, not exactly with them, but how they were interpreted by the maker of that jpg. btw I only offered the women in poverty as a single example. Besides the sources I also took issue with a few of the headlines such as the one about commitment which I found supremely disingenuous and misleading. Overall I find that jpg misleading and I hope you can agree that a better example can be offered. I'm certain you yourself could find it
I agree that better examples could be found, but given the thread it was posted in and that the statistics presented by the "other side" were on the same level, I view it as an accepted tactic. That is, unless feminist sources can be said to be unbiased in the matter, or as Joker put it "I only trust statistics from a feminist source." or something like that.
I generally agree with the statement "there are 3 kinds of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics" because there are simply way too many ways to manipulate both the outcome and interpretation of them. It's also why I tend to distrust sociology based on the quantitative method. In the case of the gender pay gap there are a myriad of factors that have to be taken into account and at that point it becomes pointless to try and make a statistic that presents an accurate picture due to the sheer volume of data.
I tend to try and make the arguments without statistics for this exact reason and the reason I ended up spamming it was because regardless of what I posted people demanded statistics.
08 Apr 2012, 5:46 pm
Vigilans wrote:
This is the second thread where you or your circle jerk of buddies have started insulting me. I have tried to maintain a level of civility but you and your angsty manchild friends make it somewhat difficult. I do nothing more than defend myself
I believe you should stop picking on them. You don't want them to lock another thread because they cannot take in what they dish out. I am completely against threads being locked without good reason, and crying to a moderator because someone got back at you isn't really a good one, in my opinion.
(Looks down at sig. I lost the original when I changed things around, and had to go off memory)
EDIT: I somehow forgot when Awesomelyglorious accused me of trying to form a death cult during the Strident Atheist elections. That is embarrassing.
_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
Last edited by HerrGrimm on 08 Apr 2012, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
08 Apr 2012, 5:54 pm
HerrGrimm wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
This is the second thread where you or your circle jerk of buddies have started insulting me. I have tried to maintain a level of civility but you and your angsty manchild friends make it somewhat difficult. I do nothing more than defend myself
I believe you should stop picking on them. You don't want them to lock another thread because they cannot take in what they dish out. I am completely against threads being locked without good reason, and crying to a moderator because someone got back at you isn't really a good one, in my opinion.
(Looks down at sig. I lost the original when I changed things around, and had to go off memory)
I might just avoid feminist threads because some males are practically screaming Judas!! !! ! at me for having my own opinion.
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
08 Apr 2012, 5:56 pm
Vigilans wrote:
I might just avoid feminist threads because some males are practically screaming Judas!! !! ! at me for having my own opinion.
You could be called worse
I'm done here, you guys can continue with the thread now. Slight apologies.
_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
08 Apr 2012, 6:00 pm
Wait a minute- you exist?
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
