|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:40 pm
Knola Do you know how this statistic is made? They take people in the same job positions, with the same amount of education and experience. The only difference is gender. The pay gap appears even at starting wages, before either person can work a single day to show what their priorities are. If that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is. The only reason women make less is because people like you make that very generalization that women aren't able to commit to work as much as men are.
Men do not work harder than women; even women who don't even have children or marriages and who make work their top priority STILL hit a glass ceiling. I know it may come as a shock to you, but the world isn't fair.
By the way, books on politics are most likely to be full of crap, hate to tell you.
You think it sucks having one little "biased" statistic thrown in your face? Please. I'd hate to see you survive in my shoes; the whole world is biased against me. I'm a good sport though. wink
Funny how the wage gap closes or widens every several years. I guess women's priorities all just shuffle around and we women all magically change our work priorities at the same exact time. Maybe use a little logic next time instead of swallowing whatever you read.
This is The Real Statistic
"This is true even though women receive better evaluations than men on average and have longer job tenure..." --Guess your argument falls flat. !!~ All those who do not wish to read the following bit but still know what I've said, feel free to go to the next "section" of my post. It, as may seem apparent, follows after the line of tildes. ~!! Quote: because the overall pay gap, as measured by the government, continues to narrow. Quote: There is no proof that discrimination is the cause of the remaining pay gap, Ms. Blau said. It is possible that the average man, brought up to view himself the main breadwinner, is more committed to his job than the average woman. But researchers note that government efforts to reduce sex discrimination have ebbed over the period that the pay gap has stagnated.
The first quote I just felt was important to remember.
The second is directly related to this conversation. If you don't mind though, I'd rather we refrain from taking an insulting tone. I'd also like it if you didn't blame me in particular for the problems you will face.
My initial response to your post had been rather unkind as far as I'm concerned, and as a result what you responded to is next to nothing like what I originally posted.
You would also do well to note that I didn't say that women couldn't commit. I stated that they made the choice. Inconceivably large difference.
As for the world being fair, I never said it was. I, basically, took a course in guilt last spring. There is nothing you can tell me that is "new" or a social problem I'm not at least partially aware of. Never assume that I am living on some cloud. I almost sued my own mother. Does giving one's own mother a lesson in the unfairness of life count as having an "understanding?"
The book by Stossel was not primarily political. It does deal with politics, but it is not meant as a political piece.Quote: Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong questions the validity of various conventional wisdoms, and argues that the belief he is conservative is untrue.
Seeing as the very source you cite also admits that there is no proof of it actually being sex/gender discrimination, I'd suggest using a stronger base.
Are women earning equally? No. Is it because of the plumbing? By your own source, there is no evidence to suggest such.
As for the whole world being biased against you... that is a vague/broad statement. I assume you mean in areas like work and potentially in your social life.
Were I in your shoes, I'd do as you say. I'd survive. You've made quite a few assumptions about my character and ability when you've never seen or met me. A little imprudent, at least.
Were I female, I would survive. I would do as I felt I should, and by looking at my sisters and my brother, I think it is safe to say I'd be and think much the same way as I do now, even without male parts/genetics.
Please also note that your own source you chose to cite for the statistic pointed out that the gap has been steadily decreasing. All you've managed to point out is that it was atrociously unfair, and while improving there has been some general fluctuation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now it may seem that I've ignored the first paragraph of your response. I'll assure you that I have thoroughly addressed your post.
This is the "sum up," if you will. The section where I restate everything in clearer terms. It might be better to skip the above, and focus your thoughts to this section.
You have made too many assumptions, and read them in a way to benefit your side of the argument.
You said/read "couldn't" whereas I made the distinction of choice.
Your own source contradicts your claims, while still wanting to endorse your claim. The New York Times is probably not the best source for you, if you want to "win."
The Stossel Book isn't political, so your statement on political books does not apply.
Were I female, by examining the male and female members of my nuclear family, I feel I'd be rather the same then as I am now. In which case, I'd still think you were wrong.
You point out fluctuation in the wage gap, but ignore the overall trend of the gap. I'm sure this was unintentional, but try to remember that the trend is as important as the fluctuations, if not more so.
Lastly, your personal attacks are... immature, at best. I retyped my original post because I felt it was too heated. All a personal attack is used for is when someone feels threatened, and don't know how to respond. Try to avoid targeting your opponents with personal attacks. It may serve as a distraction, but it reflects very poorly on yourself and your ability to debate.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:24 pm
OH EM JEEEEEEEEE
Khalida, you make life make sense!! gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:17 pm
Ohh, you actually read things! Good man. Except that I never said that the wage gap was caused entirely by discrimination. You assumed it, even though you hate people making assumptions. I only implied that discrimination plays a part in it, and there's plenty of evidence to prove that.
Originally, I was just arguing that if women completely ran this country and society, we wouldn't HAVE a pay gap, and you got all uppity over my statistic (which as we've seen, is a fact), and then assumed that I believed it to be completely because of discrimination.
Here you go, have some academic empirical evidence from journals, since I was being too lazy before by using google:
"Culture, tradition, education, and personal choice, as well as discrimination, play important roles in determining the economic well-being of individuals and groups. Gender discrimination in the workplace may be displayed in the hiring, promotion, and pay practices of businesses. Such practices may cause segregation as well as a gap in earnings. Although discrimination in promotion and hiring can undoubtedly affect the magnitude of discrimination, data limitations force most empirical studies to focus on differences in pay. Such estimates of wage discrimination will almost certainly understate the full effects of gender discrimination."
Source: Journal of Human Resources 33.4 (Fall 199 cool : p947(2).
"Becker's model of discrimination is extended to the case where men exhibit distastes for working under female managers. The distribution of women in the resulting occupational hierarchy depends on the number of women in lower occupations, the wages of male workers in lower occupations, and male distastes for female management. Thus, there exists an occupational sorting function, related to wages, that determines the occupational distribution of women."
Economic Inquiry 39.1 (Jan 2001): p94. (8616 words)
"It seems clear that the negative impact of femaleness on occupational earnings is the empirical basis of pay equity (equal pay for work of equal value) and that the logical foundation of this connection is the presumption that discriminatory demand side factors are mainly responsible for the adverse effect of femaleness on occupational wage rates."
Applied Economics 25.n2 (Feb 1993): pp227(15).
"Abstract:
The wage frontier method is employed in determining the actual wage regression for males and females to quantify wage discrimination against women. The strategy improves over Neumann's and Oaxaca's method in that the non-discriminatory wage is not assumed to be male or female wage. Meanwhile, its utility reveal that sex discrimination boosts male salaries by approximately 4% and at the same time dampens female earnings by 20%."
American Economist 37.n1 (Spring 1993): pp45(6).
In other words because this is a cultural thing, of course it is difficult to pin the "reason" down with empirical data; however here I've shown you some studies and even a study OF the studies which have shown that discrimination still exists, and it DOES affect women's pay.
On surviving...guess sarcasm doesn't go across the net well? I'm just saying, if you get THAT upset over a little statistic because you think it's biased against your gender, then yeah it's not a leap in logic to think you'd blow a gasket if you were female.
If you wanna bring in personal background...I've taken women's studies classes, women's psychology, sociology, I've worked at the battered women's shelter, and--oh yes, I'm a woman. So yeah, I know a little bit about what I'm talking about, too.
Whether or not you think the pay gap is due to cultural guilt and choices, or discrimination, or (most likely) a combination of them is a completely different thing, although as I've found in some of these studies and experience in my own life as well as the lives of the women around me, discrimination is still a factor when it comes to pay.
EDIT: I look up John Stossel's book...it also says that global warming is a myth. So your only source just went down the toilet. Thanks for being on the show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:14 am
Knola, thank you. I'll admit that I'm currently stumped, and that you have some genuine resources on your side. You've done good work.
Though I'll say that if women were in charge, the existance of a wage gap would still be dependant on how long women had been in charge. If women won all the elections, nationwide, for every state and federal office, things would be different (this isn't even mentioning worldwide).
In all likeliness, wages would be mandated by law to be equal. If they had always been in power I'd say it would be a fair assumption that a wage gap would exist, in the favor of women.
I'll not be looking stuff up tonight, but I do hope to continue this debate later. ^_^
I should also clarify what I meant by "a course in guilt." The class was supposed to be a low level sociology course, but the professor wanted to teach a course in social justice. As a result, I spent two hours a night, two nights a week , for a semester learning about how either I am the root cause of certain problems (acts of ommission I never had a say in to begin with), or that I am making things worse for everyone else in the world. Needless to say, I don't like to be blamed for things I never had a say in (like the lives of people in the Bronx, for instance).
edit: As for the Stossel book... Every 20 or so years, people freak out about either "global warming" or "global cooling/freezing." Were global warming as serious an issue as Gore would have us believe, I don't think the US would have a problem agreeing to Kyoto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:18 am
I'm not even gonna get into the mountains of evidence I've got on global warming, since I already know that you'll run straight to the conspiracy theory thing that could never be proven either way, so I won't bother. xd Plus I've already hijacked this thread too much.
Anyways...you do what you want. I'm probably not gonna get into it anymore. If you or anyone else wants to turn a blind eye to discrimination, I don't really care. I just get annoyed when people think it doesn't exist anymore when it obviously does, and I've shown that so I don't really care. Yes, it's better than it was. That doesn't mean we can drop all efforts to make it completely equal, because we still have a very long way to go, culturally speaking.
You don't have to be guilt-ridden over stuff you have no control over; however, I think it is is everyone's responsibility to take a critical look at our society and make a personal effort to not do things which are discriminatory and hurt those in our community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:48 am
Knola Thank you for making a legitimate point. Men tend to be violent (physically), women tend to use emotional or financial abuse. The reason for this is, of course, men are generally physically stronger than women. This isn't some feminazi bias, this is just a physical fact.
I worked at a domestic violence shelter, and the number of male victims was almost nonexistent. When someone calls the cops, and they come in on a scene, they usually drag off the person without a bunch of bruises all over them. No bias there. It's not hard to figure out who's more beat up after a fight.
You'll have to excuse me for laughing at people when they say there's an unfair bias in favor of women while we are all living in a patriarchal society. Women are a lot of things, but we're hardly in control of the culture and the government. If we were, we wouldn't be making 80% of what men make, and we wouldn't live in a culture where our looks are the most important thing that can give us value as romantic partners or even human beings. And yet there are men who suffer from domestic violence. But it either exists in gay relationships, or the men simply don't come forward. Because it's embarassing for their self-esteem. It, pardon the expression, "cuts their nuts off". I'm sorry, but I support political women's rights. Yet I live in a country where women get women's only shortlists in elections, meaning only a woman can be voted into office in some particular cases. That's not political equality, you get political bias in this nation. Looks are important for both men and women. I'm sorry, but I really do consider this to be a load of perspective warped nonsense. The idea that only women have to care about their appearance, and the idea that you have no control over government or culture (despite the fact that in many nations you have a monopoly over some parts of cultural expression as any kind of misogynist views, even comedic and satirical in appearance, can be labelled as offensive and blocked) is laughable. There is an unfair bias in favour of both sexes in society. Both men and women are biased against, and that's a fact. But to my original point: male police officers are often inclined to not seek punishment for female offenders of violent crime in many nations because they believe they should just "let them off". It's not just a case of "only men are violent". Both sexes are violent, but only one kind of violent crime makes it into the books. Oh, and seeing as you brought background into you previous posts, I have qualifications in History, Politics and Sociology, plus I currently study Social Anthropology in my second year at Brunel University in England. I'm not an uneducated peon on the subject, but I have to say, I'm not someone who gets involved with economics because I find it boring, and I stopped doing Sociology a long time ago because of how it doesn't properly deal with the details of human social interaction: it looks more at people instead of the actions people take in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:01 am
Knola I'm not even gonna get into the mountains of evidence I've got on global warming, since I already know that you'll run straight to the conspiracy theory thing that could never be proven either way, so I won't bother. xd Plus I've already hijacked this thread too much.
Anyways...you do what you want. I'm probably not gonna get into it anymore. If you or anyone else wants to turn a blind eye to discrimination, I don't really care. I just get annoyed when people think it doesn't exist anymore when it obviously does, and I've shown that so I don't really care. Yes, it's better than it was. That doesn't mean we can drop all efforts to make it completely equal, because we still have a very long way to go, culturally speaking.
You don't have to be guilt-ridden over stuff you have no control over; however, I think it is is everyone's responsibility to take a critical look at our society and make a personal effort to not do things which are discriminatory and hurt those in our community. There's a difference between turning a blind eye to discrimination and calling one gender entirely violent while another isn't. neutral Also, apart from equal wages, I really don't think there is much you can do to make "cultural equality" between men and women, which is, in my opinion, fascist politics. Fact is, you discriminate between the sexes because fact is, men and women like different things. And if that's a cultural construct, I don't like the idea of making men and women "the same gender with different sexes". I support the idea of political female equality entirely, but I think cultural equality is going to be hindered by biology (men cannot have children, which is a fact and the reason for Hunter Gatherer societies having a division of labour by sex in the first place). And let's face it: if women were completely politically equal, we'd see more of them in prison for violent crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:01 am
Obscurus Everyone knows that the world is going to end because we want to throw 50 Megatron firecrackers at each other.
~ Oscar Wilde on Megatron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:38 am
As far as global warming is concerned, all I feel I really need say is that seismic activity causes more "damage" via carbon dioxide emissions than we could ever hope to.
Though I'll link to the ARI for fun.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=5470&news_iv_ctrl=1255&page=NewsArticle
And CATO
To sum everything up, a good deal of the scientists "supporting" global warming are actually its largest critics. When you prefer the words of the environmentalist to the words of the geologist, there is a serious problem.edit - I also never said there wasn't discrimination, I was only stating that I do not think there is a genuine connection between gender and pay. Until I collect more evidence for my argument, the discussion on the subject is effectively over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:04 pm
Is there something that makes you feel better for degrading women?
History has done enough of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:08 pm
Khalida Nyoka As far as global warming is concerned, all I feel I really need say is that seismic activity causes more "damage" via carbon dioxide emissions than we could ever hope to.
Though I'll link to the ARI for fun.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=5470&news_iv_ctrl=1255&page=NewsArticle
And CATO
To sum everything up, a good deal of the scientists "supporting" global warming are actually its largest critics. When you prefer the words of the environmentalist to the words of the geologist, there is a serious problem.edit - I also never said there wasn't discrimination, I was only stating that I do not think there is a genuine connection between gender and pay. Until I collect more evidence for my argument, the discussion on the subject is effectively over. Yeah, I felt like jumping before I got to this post, (I'll come back in a few hours, hopefully with the correct name) apparently within a weeks worth of volcanic activity more greenhouse gases were emitted from a single (specific case though) volcano then all of mankind since we first discovered fire. That being said I'll need to go back to find the correct names for the different waves emitted from the sun that are apparently at an all time low, for the last several years or so, with are 'reducing' (bad semantics) the amount of cloud cover we have by not energizing water molecules. I wouldn't mind getting a few links on evidence for global warming though. Its already been hinted at, but using scientists reports does have its flaws, what with the seeming inability for most of them to agree, still more useful then speculation though... @Zurine-I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I play devils advocate (crappily mind you), and I don't really care what gender a person is. That said, that post seems a little... uncontributive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:48 pm
Zurine Is there something that makes you feel better for degrading women?
History has done enough of that.
Yeah, because women never commit acts of self-degradation at all. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:37 pm
Zurine Is there something that makes you feel better for degrading women?
History has done enough of that.
I love how no one has jumped all over my a** for saying s**t about women. Are you trying to empower me? That's fine. I'll fight feminism all the damn way. If I walked around in a fedora and sports jacket, it's the women who would look at me like I was retarded/lesbian. Men, I've found, couldn't really care less. Yeah, they'll stare at the girl in the halter top and miniskirt, but they'd either not acknowledge me, or respect me. The jocks might snicker, but hell, they don't count as men anyway. Especially not after steroids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:54 pm
Zurine Is there something that makes you feel better for degrading women?
History has done enough of that.
You mean me? If so, then you must have a strange idea of what degradation is. IF I were to say "your opinions are invalid due to your ability to give birth, now make me a sandwich," I think I would be degrading women (and you specifically). I do not disagree with Knola because she has two X chromosomes and I have an XY pair instead. It is because I think her opinion is wrong. If Blind or anyone else that is male were to pose the arguments she were, I'd still be arguing. Enough of the victim crap. Become a politician and take over. Then you may degrade men to your hearts content, or just enjoy the "equality" that you will bring. Dras: (I think you know not to take this seriously) ZOMG reverse sexism. You're part of the problem! You've been brainwashed by the subversive patriarchy inherent in our society! Until you repent, and kiss, the actually female, Hank's a**, nothing can get better! Feel free to tell me that I've gone over the line this time... I just may have...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:23 pm
Uh-uh, I never said women are incapable of violence, only that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. I said violent crimes are committed by men, and that physical violence is generally from men. Violent crimes can be measured; the actual amount of violence is impossible to measure so there is no point in arguing about how much it happens. We both know it exists, but we have no way of measuring how much violence exists because it is not always reported.
I specifically said, men tend to use physical abuse, while women tend to use emotional abuse. This comes from the fact that men just tend to be physically stronger than women. Nowhere did I ever say that women are incapable of abusing people.
There are some biases that work against men (such as not being able to show emotional weakness). But to argue that the cultural bias works FOR women just as much as it does for men is just naive, and I won't even bother with you if you believe that.
Or to argue that it's impossible to change means that your anthropology classes haven't gone very much in depth, because there are a few cultures in our world in which women and men's societal roles are completely reversed (women run things, men are just for looking at). Ask one of your professors about the Nagovisi of Bougainvillea in the South Pacific, the Khasi of Meghalaya, India, and the Machinguenga of Peru.
To argue that there is no bias, and "quit playing the victim:" this isn't us playing the victim. When a person or a group feels like they got a shitty deal in life, they won't stop complaining until they thinking you GET IT, and until things are even. Things are not even, and people don't get it.
I'm not asking you to go "OH I'm sorry for being a man." Of course that's ridiculous. I'm only telling you that you should simply be aware that discrimination still exists, because as long as you are aware of it, you can consciously try not to be a part of it when the time comes. This is my only real point. The other stuff is just nitpicking. And in return, I won't make fun of a man for crying in front of me, either.
In short, the easiest route is to ignore a problem and/or blame the victim. If you guys honestly think that we don't have any discrimination in today's world, well...I really wonder about your powers of observation.
As for global warming...I don't give a flying ********. You believe what your big talking heads tell you to. Makes no difference to me. If you ever want to know the truth, the peer-reviewed science journal Science recommends RealClimate.org for an unbiased look at the issue. They keep it pretty updated, so why don't you take your websites and questions over there. They have a giant list of stupid websites which claim to debunk global warming, I'm sure you can help them add to it.
Source Citation: Leslie, Mitch. "Sifting for truth about global warming.(Web Logs)(web site launched by scientists to provide evidence of global warming)(Brief Article)." Science 306.5705 (Dec 24, 2004): 2167(1).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
