- papsosouid parentThat makes no sense. People say that so that everyone will see they are bigots and ignore the rest of what they have to say? If people want to be ignored wouldn't they just not bother posting to begin with? The point of the phrase is to belittle people who dare to suggest that men are not some special privileged class of people who spend their time oppressing women.
- That's exactly what he just said.
- >That's pretty much what is common understanding of the wage gap
No it isn't. If that were the common understanding, then people would not say they are fighting for "equal pay for equal work". The very existence of the phrase "equal pay for equal work" demonstrates that people do believe (incorrectly) that women are paid less than men for the same work.
- I am saying you need to account for hours worked and years experience.
- Why are you asking me to make your argument for you? If you want to take a position on job choices and availability go right ahead, you don't need me to do it for you.
- The answer is still "account for hours work and years experience" no matter how many times you ask.
- >Those things should make you question why women not men are expected to take time out of their career to raise children, why women on average end up in lower paying jobs.
No, those things should make the feminists spouting this nonsense ask those questions. Instead, the continue to spew deliberately misleading nonsense, knowing that people are sympathetic to "women get paid less for the same work", but are much less sympathetic to "women choose to work fewer hours".
- >Almost every analysis I've ever read about the wage gap went beyond the pay difference
I find those to be in the minority myself. And those are of course never presented by feminist proponents of the wage gap myth, as those demonstrate that it is a myth.
>Wouldn't addressing the lie include an acknowledgement of wage disparity
It isn't wage disparity, that is the point. It is job disparity. If you want to make a case that women aren't able to get the jobs they want due to sexism, feel free to do so. But don't expect me to do it for you simply because you made a totally unrelated claim.
- Are you seriously asking me to copy+paste my last reply back to you? How many times do you hope to repeat the same comments, and what is the purpose of that?
- >You're suggesting that women actively seek out lower-paid, lower-status work.
All available evidence supports that notion. Women are more likely to value other things more than they value financial motives. I am also not suggesting that is the sole cause. Women work fewer hours on average, they avoid dangerous jobs, jobs with long and/or odd hours, and they are more likely to take time off which leads to them having on average less experience.
>If you're a woman that runs into this discrimination, your only choices are to lower your standards for a job, and accept one that is lower paying, or to not work at all.
Or to do the same thing the author did and put "Ms." on your resume if your name is ambiguous.
>because it's far from clear that women have the same opportunity to get the same job in the first place.
Hiring rates don't support your hypothesis.
- >Did I miss something?
Yes. The image doesn't show the opposite information as the text. As the text explains, the average of all men's wages increases more than the average of all women's wages. The average of all men and all women's wages is not how you show there is a wage gap. The average of all women work fewer hours than the average of all men, and have less experience.
- Why would you respond to someone saying "you need to account for things like hours worked, experience, position, etc" with "if you don't account for things like hours worked and experience, we can mislead people into thinking there is a gap"?
- No. Even if that were real instead of a link to a tabloid I wouldn't be happy, because that isn't relevant. We're not talking about leaders, we're talking about building a company with a massive advantage over the competition by hiring women as workers.
- >It seems like you are saying that is there is indeed a real conspiracy of institutions created and/or controlled by men, in which case I totally agree.
It seems like you are deliberately choosing to respond with non-sequiturs and strawmen because you don't want to have an honest conversation.
>I've yet to see convincing alternative explanations. All of the evidence points to existence of patriarchy as a social institution.
Just as creationists view all evidence as pointing to the existence of god. If you start with a conclusion, and twist everything to suit that end, you can't reasonably expect people who didn't start with the same bias to agree with your conclusions.
- >must mean that there is nothing that feminists disagree about?!
Nobody made that claim, that is my point. Responding to strawmen is not productive, respond to the actual conversation.
- Yes, that is a baseless assertion. I saw that when it was posted. I even commented on it. About how my wife had the exact same experience in reverse. A single personal anecdote is entirely meaningless.
- Not at all. We have constant, deliberate deception being used to influence policy and law. People overwhelmingly believe the lie that women get paid less for the same work, that would be a wage gap. Policy decisions are made based on that lie. Politicians now repeat that lie. This is a problem, and needs to be addressed. Pointing out the reality is how I am doing my part to try to address this problem. It is not splitting hairs.
- But that is just an assumption, and a rather bold one at that. If there were evidence that there is a prevailing assumption that women are 18% less capable then you would have a point. But just making a baseless assertion like that doesn't work.
- Institutions do not form spontaneously, and the "systems" you refer to were also created by humans. The notion that men created systems and institutions which oppress women, but it is totally not a conspiracy because they did it by accident is not well represented in feminist academia.
>totally provable has statistical and philosophical evidence that shows it exists.
Except that alternative explanations are dismissed. If the "evidence" supports many possible conclusions, then it is not proof of a single specific conclusion like "patriarchy".
- Yes, it does debunk it. Wage has a specific meaning. If women are taking a different job, obviously they are earning a different wage, that is in no way a "wage gap". Calling someone working 80% of the hours and earning 80% of the pay a "wage gap" is completely absurd.
>Also, men are more common the higher in company/corporate structures you go
They are also more common the lower you go. Men are more common at both extremes, and ignoring the bottom part is a really common fallacy used to push a particular agenda.
- There have been "whole academic branches" that studied all sorts of nonsense and quackery. That doesn't validate modern feminist mythology any more than it validated phrenology. Rather than resort to weasel words, if you want to take an opposing position than take it. Show me this male created oppression machine.
- >but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women.
What you described is a conspiracy. Of course feminists don't describe their own conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, they want them to appear legitimate.
- Businesses do things that are unethical to gain a competitive advantage all the time. Constantly. Every day. The fact that none of them are exploiting this "wage gap" is pretty strong support for the fact that the gap isn't actually real.
- There were also words, not just pictures. Often times words that accompany pictures can provide useful information.
- http://www.privoxy.org/
It is really simple.
- Yeah, the "wage gap" myth has been debunked many times over, it really destroys someone's credibility when they pretend it exists.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-bigg...
- That doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of mythology that is widely agreed upon in feminist circles. If you expect insane conspiracy theory nonsense like "patriarchy" to actually be supported by evidence rather than accepted on faith, then you are not welcome in feminist discourse, plain and simple.