Thank you. That is very helpful.

I'm basing it on Econ 101. If you get more marginal benefit out of a system, you're more likely to put in more effort into that system. Incentives! Basic market incentives say women would get degrees more than they currently do if they got equal pay for equal work.

Uhhh, women already earn more degrees than men.

Wow boy was I surprised to see Madcap that old independent thinker taking the bog ****ing standard reactionary line

Here is what happened. We were able to identify the root cause of the disagreement, correct it and now, if we want to move onto harder questions on the topic, we can do so using a mutually agreed upon starting point.

This is what a successful conversation looks like. If you spent less time throwing insults and more time trying to figure out what is leading to the disagreements in the first place, you may be able to have a few successful conversations of your own.

I already know what's leading to the disagreements, though.

I don't know why I keep trying to talk to you but I'm an optimist by nature.

The problem is that you failed to recognize that my 'standard reactionary line' is basically the same as the arguments coming from people who you would consider part of your tribe.

There are 3 basic arguments wrt the wage gap:

1. Women are paid $.79 for every dollar a man makes (implicit in this is that this is due to discrimination)
2. Adjusting for choices women make there is a $.06 wage gap that hasn't been explained
3. There is no wage gap

The only reasonable place to stand is in group #2. What is happening in this and in basically every argument is that when I argue against group #1, you map me onto group #3 and from there assume that it must be due to some deep moral failing.

Even though I disagree with people in group #3, they are not moral monsters. They just recognize that the arguments coming from group #1 are incorrect and so make a leap that it all must be bull****. The same thing is happening to people from group #1 from the other side.

This is why honest conversation is so important. Dishonesty ends up being so polarizing. It also helps to recognize the vast majority of people are generally good.

No, you don't, and yes, they are.

Yeah, so you should probably stop lying all the ****ing time.

Do you see the difference between group #2 and group #3?

Assuming that you can, do you recognize that the argument against group #1 from either position is the same?

What about women who dont believe in the 77 cents to a dollar wage gap? Are they moral monsters too? Or are you assuming that women all have the same opinion?

If there is a study that shows there is a 6 cents wage gap that I would be interested to see that and how they arrived at that conclusion.

If they proved this in a reasonable way they should use that study and people wouldn't think of them being as disingenuous.

Yeah, but 77 cents sound so much worse than 94 cents or 6 cents. 6 cents is easily justifiable in people's minds. 77 is horrible, how dare we abuse women so.

I would argue that it's helpful to both know and understand both statistics. They point at different things.

It's not particular reasonable to simply dismiss the "explained" part of the gap as "oh, women make different choices" as if those choices occurred in some perfectly abstract liberal utopia, unconditioned by beliefs and norms about gender or existing institutions. That's why I said before that feminist consciousness-raising on the wage gap is about more than just fighting outright discrimination. It's about trying to create a culture where women's choices are less constrained by those factors. It's not about creating a mythical world where every statistical measure comes out 50/50, but statistical measures alongside more qualitative data from women about their own experiences do provide evidence that what we're explaining as "choices" are choices in ideologically constrained ways.

On the other hand, I also doubt most men would accept a 6% pay-cut in perpetuity, "easily justifiable" or not. So I think it's something worth talking about.

I guess it comes down to wether or not biology or conditioning is the biggest factor when it comes to certain job choices. And I am sure that conditioning does play a bit of a factor but men and women are different both physically and mentally.

Women are better socially and more nurturing so are more driven towards jobs such as teaching and nursing.

Men are bigger physically , bigger risk takers and will be more driven towards construction , trades , engineering working on oil rigs and also more physically demanding and dangerous jobs.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Sweden ( which I believe is the most feminine country in the world) in the next few years to see if in fact some of these gender gaps in certain industry's are shortened.

But yes conditioning may play a factor im unsure just how big though and I dont think you can just put different career choices men and women make down to only purely conditioning.

I'm not going to ****ing play along that you're seriously interested in this ****.

Your point here is the same point you've made about literally every political issue:

Left of center people shouldn't complain about bigotry, oppression, or discrimination. Whatever they are saying is too much, it's counterproductive, they should say less.

Full stop. All your semantic nitpicking posts is just you workshopping whatever you need to get back there. Every issue, every fact those SJW Jew ivory tower eggheads throw up, it's all a petty exercise in you finding some bull**** reason to end up back at the same ****ing place.

Honest conversation involves actual honesty. And the first place YOU need to start with is being honest with yourself and recognizing that people can see through your transparent right wing bull****.

Whether or not he is right or left wing I thought he made good nuanced points here and you are just ranting and raving and coming off worse.

the studies have been conducted in scandinavia on a large scale. the more you balance society the more the differences in gender express themselves. the results are undeniable. when you remove outside influences, the differences maximize. the disparity in education and professional choices gets larger. this is the exact opposite to what all the SJW social constructionists expected, because they are socially and scientifically challenged. the research demolishes their social construction gender theory. men and women are in fact different. they have different interests. different biological obligations. different motives. of course men an women vary but on a large scale and in general, they are different

when you look at large groups and you filter them, you should expect disparity in outcomes. you should start at that point, not use it as grand evidence of oppression. i don't know what the wage gap should be if we completely removed sexism. nobody does. but when we start with a more realistic number of 6% and the understanding that you absolutely should not expect the same results, you have to then explore a wage gap with no preconceived notions or the assumption that there is an oppression epidemic. you are welcome to investigate though. go ahead, sexism exists and its wrong. just don't act as if 6% wage gap is any sort of proof of oppression. we don't know what the gap should be, we just know that its next to impossible to get the same results when looking at two different groups. we would certainly find a bigger wage gap by age. the culture must be ageist, perhaps it is but don't start investigating the idea from the perspective you have proof, or even evidence

Every choice anyone makes about anything is constrained be cultural norms/biology/etc. This seems to only be a problem if these cultural norms were forcing women into jobs they don't want. As far as I know, women have higher rates of job satisfaction despite making less. Wouldn't this be a better metric to use? (I will grant you that up to a certain point there could be some self reliance issues that come into play)

As far as a 6% disadvantage being too much, a 1% disadvantage would be too much. We should be careful here too though. Unexplained does still mean unexplained. I think it is likely that some percentage of this is likely due to discrimination (we should find where this is happening and stop it obviously) but I don't believe this number accounts for the disparity between men/women asking for raises/negotiating salary. Encouraging everyone to do this seems like an important step in the right direction.

if you map trait agreeableness on to men and women, men are far less agreeable than women. fyi there are positive and negative things attached to just about everything. people on the far left politically are also more agreeable generally. anyways people with low agreeableness are found to be better negotiators

I'm not sure he cares. I'm not sure I have ever seen him try to write anything substantive. I don't know why I decided to stop ignoring him.

Thats really interesting. I'd argue (and I think you would agree) that getting more women to push back against this is still a good thing but it does highlight the fact that there are just a whole lot of moving parts.

Fly doesn't believe half of the nonsense he rants about. He's just a hate spewing squeaker and this is the most convenient platform for him to squeak from.

Citation needed. No youtubez, please.

Im not saying that the 6 cents would even prove oppression but I would at least be more willing to entertain that argument if they used a study that more took into account the complexity of an earnings gap. And I wouldnt find the people pushing that study to be so disingenuous.

As for the Scandanavian study I wonder what the effect would look like long term even if the short term results would disprove the feminists reasoning for different choices.

I just find it hard to believe that the gender gaps in certain jobs like logging , working on an oil rig or engineering will ever shorten significantly even given a longer sample size and in a more femanist country like Sweden.

Why is it justifiable in your mind to pay someone less purely on the basis of their gender?

Well here's a problem with you guys' analysis. What I've seen of actual statistics estimates the "unexplained gap" at 12 cents, not 6. That's a big difference. The most recent data I can find estimates the "unexplained gap" at 12 cents with an overall gap of 20 cents as of 2016. But that's still very difficult to divine since you cannot know exactly how much is due to discrimination and how much is due to other factors.

http://www.aauw.org/research/the-sim...ender-pay-gap/
Still, until you guys can produce a real citation for the 6% figure, i think we have to go with 12% as being the unexplained gap until you can produce a citation otherwise.

The Pay Gap is worse for women of color
http://www.aauw.org/research/the-sim...ender-pay-gap/

is the pay gap between women and men getting worse? if not, isn't the general question of people having to work harder to make less a much bigger problem for everyone? how does that get fixed?