Wage gap?

[Jeril]

I know we likely have another thread for this somewhere but I am too lazy to dig it up. I saw this video on FB and was wondering how true it was and figured someone less lazy then I could do the fact checking.


http://www.break.com/video/do-men-really-make-more-money-than-women-2849731?fb_action_ids=10204826459953563&fb_action_types=og.shares

[Thondalar]

All looks legit to me, and is pretty much the same thing I was saying in the other thread.

[Taelinn]

I'm also too lazy to fact check the video, but as a woman in the corporate world I can anecdotally attest to the fact that women are less likely to negotiate salary. I think we believe that someone will notice our inherent worth without us having to point it out, and reward us with commensurate pay without being asked (at least, that was my thinking before I learned otherwise). One girl who reports to me, when she found out what her salary was to be increased to during her annual review, looked crestfallen. She, however, didn't say anything until I prodded a bit, then she said "it was much less than I was hoping for." Much less, but she hadn't planned to say anything to me about it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the gender pay gap is only 5-7%, and due to failure to negotiate for better salary. There is workplace sexism at times, but it's much more subtle than pay increases.

[Tgo01]

I know we likely have another thread for this somewhere but I am too lazy to dig it up. I saw this video on FB and was wondering how true it was and figured someone less lazy then I could do the fact checking.


http://www.break.com/video/do-men-really-make-more-money-than-women-2849731?fb_action_ids=10204826459953563&fb_action_types=og.shares

He pretty much makes all the points I always make whenever this topic comes up.

But all you're going to get from those who disagree are a bunch of "Nuh uh!"s and "You're obviously sexist!"

[Parkbandit]

He pretty much makes all the points I always make whenever this topic comes up.

The only reason you bring these fabricated points up is because you are a sexist.. and therefore against Hillary Clinton!


But all you're going to get from those who disagree are a bunch of "Nuh uh!"s and "You're obviously sexist!"

Son of a...

[Tgo01]

Also you can go into even more specifics than Maddox did in his video (and holy shit, I had no idea Maddox was even still around doing this type of shit.)

Maddox mentioned hours worked and experience and promotions and blah blah blah, but what accounts for part of the reason a typical woman has less experience and promotions than a typical man is because of children. Yes, we no longer live in the 1940's but women still typically are the ones who will take a year or two (or more) off from work in order to raise a child whereas the man typically continues to go to work everyday, this translates into more experience for the man and thus more promotion opportunities.

[Tgo01]

The only reason you bring these fabricated points up is because you are a sexist.. and therefore against Hillary Clinton!



Son of a...

:smug:

[Jeril]

I'm also too lazy to fact check the video, but as a woman in the corporate world I can anecdotally attest to the fact that women are less likely to negotiate salary. I think we believe that someone will notice our inherent worth without us having to point it out, and reward us with commensurate pay without being asked (at least, that was my thinking before I learned otherwise). One girl who reports to me, when she found out what her salary was to be increased to during her annual review, looked crestfallen. She, however, didn't say anything until I prodded a bit, then she said "it was much less than I was hoping for." Much less, but she hadn't planned to say anything to me about it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the gender pay gap is only 5-7%, and due to failure to negotiate for better salary. There is workplace sexism at times, but it's much more subtle than pay increases.

That part never fails to amaze me. I can somewhat see where employers are looking to cut costs but a lot of people tend to work better and be more productive if they feel they are appreciated for the work they do. One of the easiest ways to show that would be by paying them what they are worth not what you think you can get by with. Reminds me of this thing I saw about some storage company or whatever where the employees are paid double but the owner says it is worth it because they work three times harder.

[Taelinn]

That part never fails to amaze me. I can somewhat see where employers are looking to cut costs but a lot of people tend to work better and be more productive if they feel they are appreciated for the work they do. One of the easiest ways to show that would be by paying them what they are worth not what you think you can get by with. Reminds me of this thing I saw about some storage company or whatever where the employees are paid double but the owner says it is worth it because they work three times harder.

Well, I think sometimes it's just a gap in expectation - managers will assume that someone with a certain wage will be happy with a percentage increase based on that wage, when in reality the employee is using other metrics to determine what they think their salary should be. Other times, I think companies are so bloated with bureaucracy and decision-makers that there isn't much left to pay the people who do the actual work. That said, I totally agree. Well-paid employees are happy employees, and with sites like Glassdoor it's easier than ever to tell what your contemporaries are making. Not sure if this is the article you were thinking of, but I'm definitely curious to see how it pans out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ceo-giving-70000-minimum-wage-says-its-a-sacrifice/

[Tgo01]

He pretty much makes all the points I always make whenever this topic comes up.

But all you're going to get from those who disagree are a bunch of "Nuh uh!"s and "You're obviously sexist!"




Thread: Wage gap?

dumbass bitch

See? It's like I can see the future and shit.

[Latrinsorm]

For people who don't want to sit through a video for no reason, you can get the text version here (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women). Using his list of sources:

1: "They cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar."

2: "Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."

3: "The remaining 6.2 cents of the gap, which is unexplained, is the maximum that can be attributed to wage discrimination."

There are lots of people who are satisfied with there being "only" a 5% gender wage gap, and a similar 5% racial wage gap. I suspect white men would be less satisfied if they were subject to a 10% wage garnishment on the basis of their being white males.

[Tgo01]

For people who don't want to sit through a video for no reason, you can get the text version here (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women). Using his list of sources:

1: "They cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar."

2: "Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."

3: "The remaining 6.2 cents of the gap, which is unexplained, is the maximum that can be attributed to wage discrimination."

There are lots of people who are satisfied with there being "only" a 5% gender wage gap, and a similar 5% racial wage gap. I suspect white men would be less satisfied if they were subject to a 10% wage garnishment on the basis of their being white males.

Oh sure, minorities complain they can't find work so companies do them a favor by paying them less so companies would have a financial reasons for hiring them and then they still complain.

Corporations just can't win.

[Jeril]

Well, I think sometimes it's just a gap in expectation - managers will assume that someone with a certain wage will be happy with a percentage increase based on that wage, when in reality the employee is using other metrics to determine what they think their salary should be. Other times, I think companies are so bloated with bureaucracy and decision-makers that there isn't much left to pay the people who do the actual work. That said, I totally agree. Well-paid employees are happy employees, and with sites like Glassdoor it's easier than ever to tell what your contemporaries are making. Not sure if this is the article you were thinking of, but I'm definitely curious to see how it pans out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ceo-giving-70000-minimum-wage-says-its-a-sacrifice/

That isn't the article, and while this isn't the one I saw it is about the company I was thinking of: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14corners.html

[Thondalar]

That part never fails to amaze me. I can somewhat see where employers are looking to cut costs but a lot of people tend to work better and be more productive if they feel they are appreciated for the work they do. One of the easiest ways to show that would be by paying them what they are worth not what you think you can get by with. Reminds me of this thing I saw about some storage company or whatever where the employees are paid double but the owner says it is worth it because they work three times harder.

I hear this a lot from people who aren't in management.

I would say this is anecdotal, but I've been in the industry a long time now, and I hear the same thing from other managers. What it boils down to is, we can't assume anything. I've offered promotions to people who I think deserve them numerous times, only to be turned down. Some people are happy working the jobs they have, and have no desire for further advancement. This seems alien to me, but everyone has their own situations going on.

My wife is a perfect example...she worked at Wal-mart for 5 years. From about the beginning of the second year on, she was regularly offered promotions, and regularly turned them down. I make enough money that she doesn't really need to work at all, but she wanted something to keep her busy after our first kid started going to school. The added stress and work hours of the promotional position wasn't worth the increase in pay, even though it was a stepping stone to even further advancement.

In my own management position in (now) 3 different restaurants, I've come to accept this facet of life. At first I tried to promote the people I thought deserved it...but more often than not I would get turned down. So I stopped. Now I only offer promotions to people I think deserve it AND who come to me seeking a promotion. As a manager, that tells me you're interested in furthering your career with the company. If you don't tell me anything, I'm going to assume you're happy where you're at.

[Thondalar]

For people who don't want to sit through a video for no reason, you can get the text version here (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women). Using his list of sources:

1: "They cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar."

2: "Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."

3: "The remaining 6.2 cents of the gap, which is unexplained, is the maximum that can be attributed to wage discrimination."

There are lots of people who are satisfied with there being "only" a 5% gender wage gap, and a similar 5% racial wage gap. I suspect white men would be less satisfied if they were subject to a 10% wage garnishment on the basis of their being white males.

So you're admitting that just the raw things we actually have data on reduce it to "only" 5%...you don't think other things that can't be measured, like the things I talked about above me, could account for that? What about the part where he showed the four different "laws" already in place insuring equal pay?

[Thondalar]

Oh sure, minorities complain they can't find work so companies do them a favor by paying them less so companies would have a financial reasons for hiring them and then they still complain.

Corporations just can't win.

The people the plebs interpret as "being on top" never will win, because jealousy is the most prevalent and most destructive of human emotions.

[Fallen]

I'm in that very boat, T. I've turned down at least 2 job offers which amounted to higher pay because I am happy/comfortable where I am. I don't particularly need more money and I like the job I do now. I'm given an extreme degree of freedom in exchange for being flexible in my hours (I work a lot of nights and weekends). I value being to come and go as I please far more than I do an extra 10-15k a year at a job where I don't know if i'll like what I do or with whom I work.

[Thondalar]

I'm in that very boat, T. I've turned down at least 2 job offers which amounted to higher pay because I am happy/comfortable where I am. I don't particularly need more money and I like the job I do now. I'm given an extreme degree of freedom in exchange for being flexible in my hours (I work a lot of nights and weekends). I value being to come and go as I please far more than I do an extra 10-15k a year at a job where I don't know if i'll like what I do or with whom I work.

The other side of this is, I've noticed it a LOT more with women than with men. Like someone else said, sure, we aren't in the '40s anymore, but I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that the majority of bread-winners for family scenarios are still men. We're expected to bring home the bacon, so we jump at promotional opportunities, even if it means working situations we would turn down under other circumstances. I would most certainly still be a line cook if I hadn't constantly pressed for promotions. Now being in that position myself, I see why.

[Fallen]

The other side of this is, I've noticed it a LOT more with women than with men. Like someone else said, sure, we aren't in the '40s anymore, but I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that the majority of bread-winners for family scenarios are still men. We're expected to bring home the bacon, so we jump at promotional opportunities, even if it means working situations we would turn down under other circumstances. I would most certainly still be a line cook if I hadn't constantly pressed for promotions. Now being in that position myself, I see why.

You're likely right. I don't have kids to support, nor a mortgage or (too large a pile of) mounting debt. If I did, I would have likely bit the bullet and jumped at the increase of pay. Fuck that noise right in its ear.

[Jeril]

You do know my comment was about pay and not promotions? The two aren't always tied together.

[Thondalar]

A gap exists. It is much smaller than the oft reported 20%, but a gap does exist, in essence, even including all the typical complaints.

..but is it a gap that can be conceivably closed by any measure? If so...what?


edit: I'm ok with his 5%. I consider that the margin of error when trying to determine a baseline for anything involving this many variables.

[Thondalar]

You do know my comment was about pay and not promotions? The two aren't always tied together.

Well no, but like the guy in your post noted, we're comparing straight male salary to straight female salary. To this end, even within the same "job code", you have annual evaluations that generally come with a raise. Men are more likely to fight for a larger raise, whereas women are more likely to take what they get.


edit: men are also more likely to not have gaps in employment.

[Latrinsorm]

So you're admitting that just the raw things we actually have data on reduce it to "only" 5%...you don't think other things that can't be measured, like the things I talked about above me, could account for that? What about the part where he showed the four different "laws" already in place insuring equal pay?I'm the first one to source and say 5%, but somehow I'm "admitting" it... priceless. I don't know what he said in the video, I'm going off what he said on his web page. Laws are a good start, but without robust government enforcement they're just words. You'd be surprised how well just looking (https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/ernestjonesnettlebateson.pdf) at people is at effecting compliance, for better or worse.
I'm ok with his 5%. I consider that the margin of error when trying to determine a baseline for anything involving this many variables.That's not how margin of error works, but it explains a lot about your general philosophies that you believe it is.

[Warriorbird]

Thread: Wage gap?
It's bullshit to get sheeple like you to buy into the notion so you vote the way they want you to. Low information voters is a big voting block for democrats.

Alex Jones listeners? Totally "high information voters."

[Androidpk]

Alex Jones listeners? Totally "high information voters."

:lol2:

[Tgo01]

Alex Jones listeners? Totally "high information voters."

I don't know who Alex Jones is but if he's a Republican then he's got my vote for president.

[Thondalar]

I'm the first one to source and say 5%, but somehow I'm "admitting" it... priceless. I don't know what he said in the video, I'm going off what he said on his web page. Laws are a good start, but without robust government enforcement they're just words. You'd be surprised how well just looking (https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/ernestjonesnettlebateson.pdf) at people is at effecting compliance, for better or worse.

Wait, what? I distinctly recall several occasions where I've said social pressure is more effective than legislation, and you've blown it off. I'm sure those posts are now edited, so whatever. Glad to see you're on my side.


That's not how margin of error works, but it explains a lot about your general philosophies that you believe it is.

Really? Enlighten me.

[Thondalar]

It's a bit over that, though not much. I think it can be closed through careful use of resources by well meaning managers. It used to be much much worse. This is likely not the answer that most of my liberal friends want to hear... and conservatives don't like to be told they need to step their game up either.

I think at peak efficiency it wouldn't exist.

So what you're saying is there's really nothing that can be done to "fix" this other than people in management positions taking some extra steps to insure the people who deserve it are in the places they're supposed to be.

Go figure.

What amazes me is that we can figure that out here on these forums, but our President can't. Even worse, his advisers and speech-writers can't. Amazing.

[Tgo01]

What amazes me is that we can figure that out here on these forums, but our President can't. Even worse, his advisers and speech-writers can't. Amazing.

Of course the president and his speech writers can figure it out, but saying "Hey women, the wage gap is a myth, shut up" isn't gonna garner as many outraged/sympathy votes as "I hear your plight, women, and it ain't fair. Vote Democrat!"

[Gelston]

Didn't read any of the comments here. Watched the first half of the video, I can tell you he is full of shit. I grow up with only my mother, single parent. Yeah, she was paid less then a man. Guess what, when she'd look for a higher paying job, she often got passed over for men that had the same qualifications as her. He can say what he wants, with his faggy voice, the fact of the matter is... This shit is life and it happens. Sorry.

[Gelston]

OMG, here is a study from Stanford.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

Here is Wikipedia, read that article. No decrease, even though MORE women are getting college degrees than men...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

Do I need to go on? Because there are tons of places that have a lot more research than the guy in that video.

[Grey]

Good God the shitty armchair economists. Lol this thread.

[Latrinsorm]

Wait, what? I distinctly recall several occasions where I've said social pressure is more effective than legislation, and you've blown it off. I'm sure those posts are now edited, so whatever. Glad to see you're on my side.A couple things here.

1. How do you categorize "robust government enforcement" as social pressure rather than legislation?
2. "those posts are now edited"? You didn't even try to look for corroborating data, don't play it off like I hid it from you.
Really? Enlighten me.It's not intuited, it's measured and calculated. Everything empirical is. To you the only thing that matters is intelligence, and so research and finding data is irrelevant: you use "margin of error" the same way you'd identify a logical fallacy. It is the dark legacy of Aristotle, one we as a species will someday shake but not today.

[drauz]

Found this thread so I'll continue here


I'm struggling a bit here with whether you're misunderstanding my argument or you're misunderstanding the argument the authors of the Harvard piece are making. The paper and I are arguing more or less the same thing. But they're not providing evidence of most of what you're trying to say.

First, the authors *never* argued that women were choosing "people" professions over "things" professions- that's abjectly false. There is no research, to my knowledge, that supports that because "People vs things" is an inaccurate way to demarcate jobs. And the notion that women "Just happen" to be choosing fields that pay less than men is actually rather offensive and- more importantly- completely outside the scope of the research.

The authors are actually very careful to point out that they're not trying to address occupational sex segregation. In fact, they specifically chose to look at men and women in the same, highly unionized position (which makes it far more difficult for employers to directly pay women less than men) so they could control for that variable as much as possible

Ultimately, the authors are making two very important points (both of which are ones I made):
1) Even if you try to control for same job, same theoretical pay, etc. women are still being paid less (which is not captured in studies of the gender pay gap typically)
2) At least one of the significant reasons for this is that women are constrained by their outsized responsibility for housework and childcare and have to make different workplace decisions than men, decisions which hamper their careers.


So this is one of those uncomfortable moments where it turns out you googled a little too fast, and you ended up citing a paper that directly supported my point but refuted part of your argument and simply didn't provide any support for the rest.

Given this is very off topic though, feel free to make a new thread. I'll reply to subsequent posts there if you want to continue the conversation.

1) The study doesn't say that at all. Anyone can jump right to the conclusion and see thats not what it says.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
The gap of $0.89 in our setting, which is 60% of the earnings gap across the United States, can be explained entirely by the fact that, while having the same choice sets in the workplace, women and men make different choices. Women use the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to take more unpaid time off than men and they work fewer overtime hours at 1.5 times the wage rate. At the root of these different choices is the fact that women value time and flexibility more than men. Men and women choose to work similar hours of overtime when it is scheduled a quarter in advance, but men work nearly twice as many overtime hours than women when they are scheduled the day before. Using W-4 filings to ascertain marital status and the presence of dependents, we show that women with dependents – especially single women – value time away from work more than men with dependents.

2)You either want women to have choices or you don't. You can't have both. If they choose to not take the overtime or routes with more overtime or higher paying routes with weekend shift that is their choice. It seems you want equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. I don't agree with this as a tenable solution.

In regards to people vs things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Gender_differences

I should have been clearer that this wasn't from the previously linked study, this is settled science and has been replicated multiple times.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-19763-004
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189/full

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-things-women-and-people-A-meta-analysis-of-sex-differences-in-interests.pdf


The present study makes several important contributions to the literature. First, it is the first comprehensive meta-analysis on sex differences in vocational interests. We synthesized evidence from interest inventories over four decades and found large sex differences in vocational interests, with men preferring working with things and women preferring working with people. These sex differences are remarkably consistent across age and over time, providing an exception to the generalization that only small sex differences exist. Second, this study provides a systematic review of the sex differences in the STEM interests that has not previously appeared in the literature. The pattern of sex differences in the STEM interests revealed by the present study closely resembles the composition of men and women in corresponding occupations and contributes to the understanding of the gender disparity in the STEM fields. The results suggest that the relatively low numbers of women in some fields of science and engineering may result from women’s preference for people-oriented careers over things oriented careers.

This is well known science, as a self proclaimed social scientist I am shocked you've never heard about this...

To be crystal clear I am not saying that women are less capable when they choose to go into these fields only that they tend to not be interested in them.

[Blazar]

Found this thread so I'll continue here



1) The study doesn't say that at all. Anyone can jump right to the conclusion and see thats not what it says.


2)You either want women to have choices or you don't. You can't have both. If they choose to not take the overtime or routes with more overtime or higher paying routes with weekend shift that is their choice. It seems you want equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. I don't agree with this as a tenable solution.

In regards to people vs things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Gender_differences

I should have been clearer that this wasn't from the previously linked study, this is settled science and has been replicated multiple times.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-19763-004
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189/full

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-things-women-and-people-A-meta-analysis-of-sex-differences-in-interests.pdf



This is well known science, as a self proclaimed social scientist I am shocked you've never heard about this...

To be crystal clear I am not saying that women are less capable when they choose to go into these fields only that they tend to not be interested in them.

You realize that every single "source" (well, 4/5 links, with the other just confirming what I am going to say regarding assertiveness and evolution and being the subservient gender for so long) you posted was authored by the same two people, right? Anyone else supporting these claims, or just the two? Because it seems more like they have a theory they are trying to prove.

Obviously women and men have different characteristics and natures, generally speaking, and that is going to determine a lot of trends. However, that is only because of the societal roles that have been played for so long now. Traits like being dominant and confident are what get you paid more. You know... feeling like you are valued and feeling like you are able to ask for more. It's only been recently that women have even been partially considered equal in the work place and told it's okay to do this, and you expect them to just immediately have these traits after hundreds, no, thousands, of years of being forced into subservience? That's simply not how evolution works. Especially not when men are still in the majority of the positions of power.

I'm a single dad, and I enjoy the benefits of a nice salary and flexibility to take care of my kids. It's possible to have both for men, but very rarely for women. I'm not saying the wage gap hasn't improved, but there is so much more that goes into it than you're mentioning and it definitely does exist, you're simply not doing it justice to pretend it doesn't exist. And why is it just the women that need to have choices? More and more, dads are actually being responsible for their children and contributing, staying home when they are sick, etc. Why can those men be more willing to work overtime? Most likely because, if they have kids, they have a wife at home taking care of them. This train of thought you have is pretty antiquated, open your eyes and think about why things are the way they are, not just that they are.

[Tgo01]

And why is it just the women that need to have choices? More and more, dads are actually being responsible for their children and contributing, staying home when they are sick, etc. Why can those men be more willing to work overtime? Most likely because, if they have kids, they have a wife at home taking care of them. This train of thought you have is pretty antiquated, open your eyes and think about why things are the way they are, not just that they are.

What exactly are you arguing? If those men are choosing to stay home to take care of the kids then they are slowing their advancement which means they aren't making as much as men who are putting in the hours to get experience and get promoted. It also means those men would be earning less than woman who are choosing to put in the extra hours and get promotions.

So again what are you saying? We just pay women more for shits and giggles? Life is all about choices. If women in general are choosing to take time off from their career after starting a family then that is a choice no one is making them choose, but we pay them more because of "muh oppression" or what? Do women want to be treated equally or not?

Let's try this again but first you need to follow these steps:

1) Remove your head from your own anus.
2) Collect your thoughts and organize them in a rational and coherent manner.
3) Tone down your rage slightly and type out those thoughts in a way that doesn't just sound like you're trying to hit all of the buzz words and phrases because that's all you can remember from the headlines you read on any given subject you decide to insert yourself into.

[Blazar]

What exactly are you arguing? If those men are choosing to stay home to take care of the kids then they are slowing their advancement which means they aren't making as much as men who are putting in the hours to get experience and get promoted. It also means those men would be earning less than woman who are choosing to put in the extra hours and get promotions.

So again what are you saying? We just pay women more for shits and giggles? Life is all about choices. If women in general are choosing to take time off from their career after starting a family then that is a choice no one is making them choose, but we pay them more because of "muh oppression" or what? Do women want to be treated equally or not?

Let's try this again but first you need to follow these steps:

1) Remove your head from your own anus.
2) Collect your thoughts and organize them in a rational and coherent manner.
3) Tone down your rage slightly and type out those thoughts in a way that doesn't just sound like you're trying to hit all of the buzz words and phrases because that's all you can remember from the headlines you read on any given subject you decide to insert yourself into.

Or you could learn to read and not be a total fucking moron, but hey, who am I to say?


staying home when they are sick, etc.

Women who are working, and getting paid less than men who are also working and doing the same job, is wrong, and that is what is going on. That is what was confirmed in the article Drauz linked. Drauz argued that women are paid less because they need to have more choices, but this is only because of their societal role for so long. And I argued that more and more, men are taking up those responsibilities, but they will not be paid less even though they are afforded those same options. Man you are really fucking dense Tgo. Did you even graduate high school? Can you do anything except drool and watch Fox News? What a pathetic excuse of a person. If you're going to participate, at least try to fucking keep up, reject.

And it's laughable if you think I have any rage at all. I'm high 24/7, and sitting here completely chill. And that post really didn't have any rage anyways, because I actually respect Drauz. Do I think you're an idiot? Yup, most definitely. Do I respect you? Not at all, you simply don't deserve any. You morons wanted to keep being uncivil when I tried to be nice, so I joined you. Enjoy it, you asked for it. It costs me nothing to remind you what a piece of shit you are, and it doesn't make me angry in the slightest.

[Tgo01]

And I argued that more and more, men are taking up those responsibilities, but they will not be paid less even though they are afforded those same options.

Except you're absolutely full of shit. The "wage gap", the one which says women are paid 80 cents on the dollar to a man, just looks at the total of what women earn and the total of what men earn without looking at experience, hours worked, or even careers. When careers are taken into account the "wage gap" shrinks, when experience and hours worked are factored in the "wage gap" almost completely disappears, the remaining can be attributed to men being more willing to negotiate their salary to get more money while women tend to negotiate less and take what is offered to them.

Therefore you are 100% full of fucking shit to suggest a man can decide to take time off from work after starting a family and yet still be paid the same as if he had not taken time off work. He lost those hours, he lost that experience, and will most likely have to put off on that promotion due to him taking time off work.


Man you are really fucking dense Tgo.


New PC drinking game: take a drink every time Blazar says "How dumb can you be?" or some variation thereof, and anytime he acts surprised by something someone said.

DRINK!


And it's laughable if you think I have any rage at all. I'm high 24/7, and sitting here completely chill.

Well you certainly proved how calm and rational you are.

[drauz]

You realize that every single "source" (well, 4/5 links, with the other just confirming what I am going to say regarding assertiveness and evolution and being the subservient gender for so long) you posted was authored by the same two people, right? Anyone else supporting these claims, or just the two? Because it seems more like they have a theory they are trying to prove.

Obviously women and men have different characteristics and natures, generally speaking, and that is going to determine a lot of trends. However, that is only because of the societal roles that have been played for so long now. Traits like being dominant and confident are what get you paid more. You know... feeling like you are valued and feeling like you are able to ask for more. It's only been recently that women have even been partially considered equal in the work place and told it's okay to do this, and you expect them to just immediately have these traits after hundreds, no, thousands, of years of being forced into subservience? That's simply not how evolution works. Especially not when men are still in the majority of the positions of power.

I'm a single dad, and I enjoy the benefits of a nice salary and flexibility to take care of my kids. It's possible to have both for men, but very rarely for women. I'm not saying the wage gap hasn't improved, but there is so much more that goes into it than you're mentioning and it definitely does exist, you're simply not doing it justice to pretend it doesn't exist. And why is it just the women that need to have choices? More and more, dads are actually being responsible for their children and contributing, staying home when they are sick, etc. Why can those men be more willing to work overtime? Most likely because, if they have kids, they have a wife at home taking care of them. This train of thought you have is pretty antiquated, open your eyes and think about why things are the way they are, not just that they are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617741719


“Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose STEM professions because they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing.

When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in STEM. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places.

The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.


The findings will likely seem controversial, because the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is used by some to argue that we should forget trying to recruit more women to the STEM fields. But, as Janet Shibley Hyde, a gender-studies professor at the University of Wisconsin who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here.

“Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.”

Men and women are mostly the same but to really examine the differences you go the extremes, at the high ends it is overwhelmingly male on the side that like "things" and at the other end it is overwhelmingly female for people who like "people".

In regards to other studies:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9569655/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19254079/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19686005/