link please?

Like I say, if this were really happening you'd quickly see a huge swing towards women in the workforce as they would be effectively undercutting men en masse (and as Sputnik has pointed out, it would only take a small percentage of companies to employ such a female-centric policy to quickly out-compete their rivals in the market).

But of course, you don't.

Women earn less in general because of their choices. Primarily when they drop out of the workforce to become mothers but also because they don't appear to be naturally attracted towards skilled/technical careers to the same extent that men are*. And that is OK, because the ones that *are* attracted to those fields do just as well as the men and earn just as much.

*Indeed, in Pakistan, women make up about 40-50% of students in STEM fields.

Yet in Scandinavian countries, they only make up around 10-15%.

Lol Rasta. Nothing like accusing people of not posting actual evidence while not reading anything they've posted and never posting evidence of your own.

Edit: And still waiting for your reconciliation of your economic beliefs and the racial wage gap.

jj really sucking ITT

Meh, I guess you're right. If you guys want to avoid reading anything that might destroy your fragile view of the world and cling to your shallow economic understanding of the world, who am I to stop you?

Everybody is paid fairly and discrimination can never happen in a free market capitalist society.

Why are more men in prison? Why do more men watch football? Why do more men play golf? Why do more men solicit prostitutes? Why do males score better on standardized math exams? Why are more men published in scientific journals where the article is submitted anonomously? Why are there more younger people in jail? Why do men drink more? Differences exist. What you choose to attribute these things to is arbitrary, but the most obvious explanation is probably the correct one.

-----

I would like to hear the explanation for the income gap to be that the smarter women are able to convince men to put a roof over their head and are able to be a stay at home mom.

Lol wtf gender inequality? Like women have vaginas and their belly grows while men have hard ons all the time because women dress sexy?
Poor women have such a hard life. Feminism **** yeah.

"Thread is now redundant, there is a thread moved from nvg with people arguing that women and blacks aren't disadvantaged at all."

Do women and blacks have any disadvantages? Who gives a ****? Does someone with a father drinking himself to death and a mother penetrating herself with carrots all day long have any disadvantage? Someone with Down Syndrome? People are not equal, never were, never will be. **** it. Get over it. Shut up.
Are there stupid people treating other people like **** because of their gender or their color of skin? Yes. Are there people treating other people like **** because of "insert reason". Yes. People treating other people like **** are *******s, no matter for what reason.

There is no big racist or anti-women plot to **** up some group. Some people are just dumb and stupid, get over it.

Some people really have different perceptions of the world in this thread and don't understand they may be wrong or that its impossible to know who is right...

It comes down to few things and they really are pretty simple.

1. Is society to blame for making one gender be conditioned, to behave in an unhealthier lifestyle than the opposite sex or race lives.
2. Or is the individual to blame for not adopting the lifestyle that they want to live.
Note: In those two above, i'm not saying who has it better, its open to opinion and some people in this world will go as far by changing their gender or whatever. I don't believe that I should get attacked for expressing these thoughts because who is to know if its not a factor or not, how to measure some question like this,... impossible.


If more women at the top of their fields, wanted to do what some of the men are doing to get the extra pay then they should do it.

What is it that men are doing that women are not?

Once again is it an cultural thing, by the individual (in this topic a woman) behaving a certain way (from genetics or society conditioning) that, results in not getting the pay that other men are getting.
Or are men just out numbering woman at the top and they're conditioning is indirectly causing them to not be fair in giving woman that are deserving, the same pay advancement as men at the company or wherever.

It very well, could just be a crap shoot in society, where women are not even demanding the extra money but are satisfied and really make it awkward for them asking for raises. They live a pretty healthy lifestyle compared to men in a lot of ways, making them not so focused on money or who knows what, all the power to them!

How does america want to handle this issue?
Do they believe that growth of the country is founded on ideals that allow employers to rule over who gets extra money based on whatever they believe or should we adopt something else. Hopefully, we will get to a time period, where lifestyle is pretty good, that people won't even get extra pay that are happy at the top and results in no problem this topic is about.

You guys are pretty much wasting your time, worshiping a dumb study or whining back and forth about it; the study was created using the same old tactics that do nothing for your nation or the world by pointing out the obvious.
The world is **** right now and its pretty hard to fix with laws that could totally destroy what the forefathers built; fastest growing nation of competition that could create world peace or we are doomed no matter how the dice is rolled. I'm not saying giving women that deserve equal pay, causes something the forefathers didn't built but the laws that could be put into place could maybe cause an effect where it necessary isn't competition driven anymore.

Just to make sure that I don't get trolled, I have nothing against women, I very much think higher of the female gender than men in how they approach life as a majority compared to men that I meet. This thread is really boring, when it could be more useful by supplying ideas on if law changes should be necessary and if so what type of changes.

Yes that wikipedia entry is sure destroying fragile views... I would say rather than destroy it upholds the fragile views of the offended by saying exactly what some want to hear without actually providing the evidence for it.

Stuff like this shows absolutely nothing except that men as a group make more money than women as a group. If you are rational you could also deduct that this is likely because of the gender segregated market that pretty much all cultures have. Women work more in less paying but higher life quality jobs(work hours, danger, personal enjoyment etc) while men seem to favor money before enjoyment(tougher, longer commutes, longer hours, more dangerous etc).

Now if you are a believer like JJ you will look at this and think ZOMG discrimination. There is no difference in men and women therefor this must mean that the patriarchy holds women down for reasons... TRUTH

This is a theme in the entire article. It says pretty much nothing except to the initiated believers.

I love it when these men's rights ******s try to pretend they understand math or statistics. Always a hoot.

"Here's why this peer-reviewed study is wrong, and you can believe me: I graduated from high school!"

Yes, I can see why you were so reluctant to have to post your evidence when this is what it's comprised of...

This is an article reporting that someone with a clearly vested interest and dubious funding sources has posted a study. It contains no information from the study nor indeed anything other than purely second-hand reporting about the findings of the study, which are taken entirely at face value.

Evidently, you've taken this study to be completely flawless without a shred of scepticism or even curiosity and investigation.

Because it fits the views that you already hold.

Not hugely impressive.

You're really struggling with this aren't you?

I don't have to provide evidence of anything. You're the one trying to prove something, therefore you're the one that has to provide the necessary evidence to convince people.

I need no more present evidence against the completely unfounded assertion that men make more than women for the same work than I do that God doesn't exist or that fairies don't exist at the bottom of your garden.

Rasta, you're like the perfect example of what I enjoy in PU.

Posts link 3 times = reluctance.

Im sorry you couldn't figure out how links work but here's the link to the study: http://m.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract

But in Rasta land you don't need to actually read a study or point out what's wrong with it. If it's from a women and shows results that don't agree with your world view it's clearly biased.

As for providing evidence, you seem to be confused. There's evidence of a wage gap - we all agree with that. You need to provide evidence for your argument that the gap is caused by differences between men and women just like we need to provide evidence that it's at least partially from discrimination.

Sputnik, read the parts on the unexplained portion of the wage gap.

Yes this really tells the whole story. Unexplained really sounds like it means noone knows right. Therefor thats what we will use it as and claim that it must be discrimination.

Unexplained means that there are factors not controlled for in the survey and not something that is unknown.If you where actually honest and looked at raw data for women and men with the same job(not comparing nurses with construction workers) you would see that there is no 20% difference and you would see that the more factors used when looking at the difference the more the unexplained part along with the difference will shrink.

You would know that if you would have actually read and looked at the numbers in the links i provided.

We compared same jobs. Well named posted the link. Do you recall how often, in the same job, women were paid the same or more than men?

Your links were in Swedish and a poorly scanned version of a study that was 30+ years old. Maybe Sweden doesn't have gender discrimination, I don't know enough about the country, but given how you evaluate the evidence posted ITT I doubt it.

Edit: But I love how you know the unexplained IS NOT discrimination. You don't know what it is but you just KNOW it couldn't be discrimination. Even though we have lots of evidence that it is - like a resume being treated much more poorly based only on the gender.

That may be true in some cases, but if you could pay women and minorities less to do the exact same work don't you think a few companies would figure that out and maximize profits? If you have a company that employs 500 people and you replaced all the white males with people who did the same job for less that would be a ton of money at the end of the year.

Most companies wouldn't do that but you'd think a few greedy ones would see all the money they are leaving on the table.

If you had actually read the links i posted(there is an english translation) you would see that the trend over a long time has been that women are not discriminated when you measure for same job and same competence.


You are digging that ideological hole deeper and deeper. This is what the wiki entry says.



The explained part is the variables used when conducting the survey. Some surveys only check for say occupation and education and will get a flawed result. The unexplained will now be the other variables that they didnt controll for and will likely be larger than a survey with alot of explained variables.

So no the unexplained can not be attributed to discrimination unless you want to paint an dishonest picture.

Since the thread is educating through wikipedia, thought this might help put some additional perspectives in on stuff like race in the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

It is JJ´s "evidence" that comes from wiki... And race is a whole different matter and shouldnt be discussed here

I'm equally skeptical of both your posts and JJ's.

Really I'm still stuck how the discussion is about sex discrimination, but is labeled as gender. It's like a myth about semi-informed pontificators.

Sweep, asked and answered. Multiple times. You're just repeating the same simplistic economic statements that have already been explained.

And nobody has taken on the racial wage gap - which is pretty hilarious because if you guys were accurate in your economic understanding we wouldn't have a racial wage gap.

Wiki as a proxy for about a half dozen studies linked to from there.

Its a mishmash of ideological interpretations and not scientific at all.

You havent explained anything at all.

You say you want sources on our claims and when we show that you complain that they are old or not valid. You dont understand the difference between general wage gap and job for job wage gap.

But as usual its blinders on and now its time to derail into something that isnt related.

After that its to be expected that the personal attacks and guilt by association will arrive am i correct? Well L.K has already tried but it was a bit to early and its L.K so noone listens.

1. Do you have any reports not in Swedish and not 30 years old that support your claims?

2. How many variables have to be controlled for before you'll be admit that the gap just might be gender related? What isn't being controlled for in the reports JJ has listed?

What do you presuppose are the characteristics of the idealogical positions you claim are driving interpretation?

Does ideology account for an entire basis to assert the knowledge available which indicates existent and potential sex discrimination is all simply discreditable?

I have some reason doubt your certainty of doubt.