It was rhetorical. And I agreed with part of what you said. However I don't believe it to be bullshit in all cases.
The article I was refering to was the last one. They acknowledged there was no reason for the gap and decided to pay everyone equally. Men would have benefited as well if they were not being paid the same as everyone else for the same job. But the fact remains that pay was not equal. The only difference was gender. Although they did note that they didn't check for religious differences, but that wasn't the point. Im not sure why that upsets you, or anyone. Think of it as a cost of living wage increase.
I don't think it is as big of a problem as some make it out to be but I also feel it is irresponsible to dismiss it entirely. It isn't bullshit. And believing that it is only perpetuates the problem.
They said they based it on a supposed "systematic bias" which means that their system is designed to discriminate against women. This implies the company itself is admitting to discriminating against women on their gender. Which, I highly doubt, is what they meant and therefore is not "correcting" a "pay gap" as they are thinking of it.
Furthermore, actually giving all female faculty members a higher salary simply because of their gender actually DOES create a "systematic bias". Funny that.
The study they did within the company could not determine "whether there was a systematic difference as a function of rank." Ergo, the gap was based on the fact that some men in the company held higher positions and therefore - of course - had a higher salary. Not based on discrimination.
Article itself even admitted the mens' added pay via merits was based on "the acaedmic's body of research and teaching." Also not based on discriminatory bias.
Well, I don't feel much for arguing anymore. I get the feeling you wouldn't think inequality existed even if I felt like posting articles from random sources. Especially since I agree with you on some points, but not all.
Just keep in mind that most discrimination is unconscious and people often have no clue they are behaving inappropiately. And we are expected to take it without a fight. To never question the actions of others because it might disrupt their comfortable little world.
More men are murdered and more men successfully commit suicide but is that just a natural fact or something that deserves examination? Do men need help here? Should we just ignore these statistics because it's due to men's personal "choices" (totally not societal-norm driven!!) and avoid any help for men or women trying to break these norms? Like it's supposedly total free choice that women take less pay and more time off causing less professional success? And like professional success is more valuable than personal....raising a family? What is less valuable than raising the next generation...? Why is raising children, while incredibly valuable, treated as almost worthless? Having no monetary or societal value? Why do we place more value on making the rich richer over enriching our own families?
I didn't know that guys being murdered was their personal choice. The more you know, I suppose...
I don't think your comparison weighs up. In cases like suicide and murder there is usually a force against them that brings those things about, be it depression (a mental illness) and crazy axe killers, etc, etc. Nobody has a force against women asking for higher pay or not having children.
If people want to help women ask for higher raises or not have children, then that's fine for them to do.
The reason why it's not treated as important as a job is because, in all honesty, due to technology, being a stay at home parent is somewhat easy. You're in your comfort zone most of the time, your home, where you are free to look after a child aswell as do your own thing. Then there's the whole overpopulation thing which makes having children seem like a diservice.
Hi there. Sorry it took a while to respond. I'm replying up here because the other text box is getting too small.
Yes, participating in crime does open you up to being legally or reasonably killed in many cases. Victims or potential victims, witnesses and police all pretty much reserve the right to kill if the threat meets a certain standard depending on the circumstances so participating in violent crime (and in the case of police, ANY crime) carrys a known, reasonable, risk of death.
I'm not a fan of "biotruths" so I won't bother going point by point...the generic answer will apply to all. There is no way to prove men are x and women are y by pointing out trends. There is no way to prove biology over societal or philosophical implications. Correlation does not equal causation. Any time a "biotruth" is brought up, it can be used as a way to excuse or to harm. For instance, men are stronger...so men can't suffer abuse or rape, right? Men are better at fighting so only men should go to war? Women are better at child care so women should always get custody, right? Or we could look at it as human issues and see that people are often forced into certain roles...not that they are necessarily better at it but had no real choice. Do men make worse parents because there is less at-home dads or do less men even try because it has not been seen as a male role due to cultural pressures and past necessity that is no longer valid? Could there be men out there who never even thought they could choose to stay home because of how we as a culture view a "man's role"? Etc...
Biotruths are bullshit.
I'm going to share a personal story here that I have never told anyone ever. It was simultaneously the most shameful, embarrassing and the most enlightening experience of my life and I sincerely hope by telling it you can gain from my experience.
My little brother had some issues as a teen and ended up running away from home. Well, he borrowed someones cell phone one day and I was home to answer the call. He said he was ok and stuff, we talked for a minute and he hung up. I had to tell our parents of course, and I was asked to call the number back to see if whoevers phone it was could give us information on my brother's whereabouts. I did, and the guy was no help. I then got involved with talking to the police to try to track him down. They wanted to know about the phone guy. I said "it sounded like a black guy". I was pretty adamant about that. Next day, I go to talk with the officer in person. She was a black woman. I was....mortified. I just got slapped in the face with my racist attitude. I had told this woman, who was black, unbeknowst to me (she was a cop...and didn't "sound black" at all), that I was sure I had talked to a black guy on the phone yesterday. I though I was not racist....I thought I was just being logical because the guy sounded black...according to my limited "knowledge" of black people. I meant no harm or offense when I said he sounded black! But at that moment I realized how little my intent mattered, how ignorant I was and how much I probably hurt that woman when I said that. She didn't "sound black". I legit thought she was a white lady. Holy shit, what have I done?
I could have avoided confronting what a stupid jerk I was by rationalizing it with stereotypes, I mean what...aren't the majority who "sound black" actually black?? but no kidding at that moment I did have a major revalation. I WAS a jerk moron insensitive ass. Even ifI WAS right and the guy on the phone was black, I still made someone feel bad. Being right in any sexist or racist situation still only produces more hurt and suffering than anything. That was my moment of clarity and incentive to change...I never intended harm or thought I hurt anyone and I never considered myself racist but I was way wrong. Just a thought to consider what you're saying, how it cAn hurt and the cost of being "right". Even if we said 70% of the people who sound black are black, what did I accomplish by saying I thought he was black? All I really did was make myself look like an ass and hurt someones feelings over stupid stereotypes and my limited experience. Never again...
Often it is personal choices that contribute to it. Participating in crime? Aggression and fighting?
My comparison weighs up. The whole point is that there's often pressures and forces that cause people to make certain "decisions" (I quote that because it's not always really a free choice when there's so much influence involved or when you don't even realize you have a choice).
There absolutely is forces against women asking for more money. There is reasons why men and women "choose" careers and why those careers pay how they do. There is pressure on women to have children. Men want children too, you know. Why is it assumed that women take a huge hit career-wise to attend to household and child issues? Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this assumption.
However hard or easy the physical tasks of raising a family are is irrelevant. Family should come first before serving some company. We should encourage that. Mothers AND fathers should be involved as much as possible without the negative repercussions.
First world countries are, for the most part, not overpopulated nor contributing to global overpopulation.
Participation in violence is still not a personal choice to have a higher level of violence put against you. That's like saying because you take part in a heated discussion which is getting everyone angry that you're making a personal choice to have violence inflicted on you simply because it's a possible outcome.
Unless men were somehow being told by society that they should demand higher pay then I'm not sure how these forces can make two different outcomes like that. It could also be down to biological aspects, such as testosterone levels making you take more or less risks, which not accepting a job unless you have a higher pay is a risk to take of rejection. What influences are you talking about exactly here?
What reasons are there for men picking certain careers, same goes for women? Again, I'd say testosterone may have something to do with it, hence why more men are likely to go in to riskier careers aswell as more physical ones. Not sure what you mean by why those careers pay the way they do, though. If you could elaborate.
I'm not entirely sure where the pressure of women having children comes from. Maybe it's simply because I'm not a woman but as part of the society that apparently does this I haven't noticed it. Possibly because it's the norm for women to have children that it's expected? Which it's simple enough to just not follow those expectations.
Why is it expected for women to attend to the household and child issues? I'd suppose it's because on average men are more likely to work in harder and riskier jobs and more likely to be the bread winner and so spend more time at work and doing harder work on top of that as the woman so due to the man on average that is bringing in more money to provide which results in more work, it's understandable that the female would compensate by doing extra work at home. Ofcourse, same goes for men if the sexes are reversed.
Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this. Meeeeeh. On one hand I can see that happening and think it's wrong. On the other I can understand it. Women can go on maternity leave and do so far more than men go on paternity leave if it's available. So essentially, by hiring a woman, they're taking a gamble for a certain period of time of them hiring someone who won't take that long pay-leave or someone who would. My view for that would be that maternity leave should either be made to go on for a far smaller period of time or it shouldn't be accepted at all, which would eliminate the whole issue of taking that gamble which the employer may have to pay for an employees personal life choices. That way that assumption would go away mostly if not entirely due to that gamble no longer being an issue. Same would go for paternity leave.
You say about how family should come first and it seems like you don't realize (I may be mistaken, so don't bite my head off over this) that a lot of the times work comes first so that the family comes first, if that makes sense. They need the money to provide for their family, you can't really have one without the other unless you're on some sort of government benefits.
I don't have an issue with people being mothers or fathers before anything else even if I think it's easier in comparisson to a career but I also think that people juggling family life and a career are at the risk of having their career effecting their family or their family effecting their career. You can have both if done properly, sometimes even do extremely well in both, but there are risks and troubles along the way.
Pssht, you say that but what about 'dem illegal aliens? THEY TOOK UR JERBZ!
The point here is to examine the forces behind the choices and realize not all choices are made freely. You can explain away a situation by pointing out choices made but that's not good enough and it's often not fair, as I just showed you with the example of dead men. I could simply say more men die because of choices they make, that's all, end of discussion- but that's unfair, it's callous, and it doesn't truly examine or help solve the problem. Obviously we need to ask why men are making such choices, what pressures are involved and how can we help.
Your opinions here seem to come from a place of upholding the status quo. Try asking why things are how they are and if it's really right or good, or "not that bad", rather. For examples, ask why is it ok to punish people for having a family? Why is it normal or ok for men to spend so much time away from home or children? Could more people work from home? More flexible schedules? Pay people a decent wage? How can workplaces be more family-friendly? Less stressful? Allow more for personal life while not taking a heavy toll on finances or professional success? And so on. How can we help end discrimination? How do we stop holding ourselves and others back with these heavily ingrained gender roles? Those are all questions worth thinking about.
If you could try one thing as a member of the opposite sex, would you?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
It was rhetorical. And I agreed with part of what you said. However I don't believe it to be bullshit in all cases.
The article I was refering to was the last one. They acknowledged there was no reason for the gap and decided to pay everyone equally. Men would have benefited as well if they were not being paid the same as everyone else for the same job. But the fact remains that pay was not equal. The only difference was gender. Although they did note that they didn't check for religious differences, but that wasn't the point. Im not sure why that upsets you, or anyone. Think of it as a cost of living wage increase.
I don't think it is as big of a problem as some make it out to be but I also feel it is irresponsible to dismiss it entirely. It isn't bullshit. And believing that it is only perpetuates the problem.
--
lolol555
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The last one? Ahaha, nope.
They said they based it on a supposed "systematic bias" which means that their system is designed to discriminate against women. This implies the company itself is admitting to discriminating against women on their gender. Which, I highly doubt, is what they meant and therefore is not "correcting" a "pay gap" as they are thinking of it.
Furthermore, actually giving all female faculty members a higher salary simply because of their gender actually DOES create a "systematic bias". Funny that.
The study they did within the company could not determine "whether there was a systematic difference as a function of rank." Ergo, the gap was based on the fact that some men in the company held higher positions and therefore - of course - had a higher salary. Not based on discrimination.
Article itself even admitted the mens' added pay via merits was based on "the acaedmic's body of research and teaching." Also not based on discriminatory bias.
--
howaminotmyself
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
SecretIdentity
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Well, I don't feel much for arguing anymore. I get the feeling you wouldn't think inequality existed even if I felt like posting articles from random sources. Especially since I agree with you on some points, but not all.
Just keep in mind that most discrimination is unconscious and people often have no clue they are behaving inappropiately. And we are expected to take it without a fight. To never question the actions of others because it might disrupt their comfortable little world.
Why is it so hard to believe that people suck?
So is the murder and suicide gap a myth too?
More men are murdered and more men successfully commit suicide but is that just a natural fact or something that deserves examination? Do men need help here? Should we just ignore these statistics because it's due to men's personal "choices" (totally not societal-norm driven!!) and avoid any help for men or women trying to break these norms? Like it's supposedly total free choice that women take less pay and more time off causing less professional success? And like professional success is more valuable than personal....raising a family? What is less valuable than raising the next generation...? Why is raising children, while incredibly valuable, treated as almost worthless? Having no monetary or societal value? Why do we place more value on making the rich richer over enriching our own families?
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I didn't know that guys being murdered was their personal choice. The more you know, I suppose...
I don't think your comparison weighs up. In cases like suicide and murder there is usually a force against them that brings those things about, be it depression (a mental illness) and crazy axe killers, etc, etc. Nobody has a force against women asking for higher pay or not having children.
If people want to help women ask for higher raises or not have children, then that's fine for them to do.
The reason why it's not treated as important as a job is because, in all honesty, due to technology, being a stay at home parent is somewhat easy. You're in your comfort zone most of the time, your home, where you are free to look after a child aswell as do your own thing. Then there's the whole overpopulation thing which makes having children seem like a diservice.
--
SecretIdentity
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
SecretIdentity
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hi there. Sorry it took a while to respond. I'm replying up here because the other text box is getting too small.
Yes, participating in crime does open you up to being legally or reasonably killed in many cases. Victims or potential victims, witnesses and police all pretty much reserve the right to kill if the threat meets a certain standard depending on the circumstances so participating in violent crime (and in the case of police, ANY crime) carrys a known, reasonable, risk of death.
I'm not a fan of "biotruths" so I won't bother going point by point...the generic answer will apply to all. There is no way to prove men are x and women are y by pointing out trends. There is no way to prove biology over societal or philosophical implications. Correlation does not equal causation. Any time a "biotruth" is brought up, it can be used as a way to excuse or to harm. For instance, men are stronger...so men can't suffer abuse or rape, right? Men are better at fighting so only men should go to war? Women are better at child care so women should always get custody, right? Or we could look at it as human issues and see that people are often forced into certain roles...not that they are necessarily better at it but had no real choice. Do men make worse parents because there is less at-home dads or do less men even try because it has not been seen as a male role due to cultural pressures and past necessity that is no longer valid? Could there be men out there who never even thought they could choose to stay home because of how we as a culture view a "man's role"? Etc...
Biotruths are bullshit.
I'm going to share a personal story here that I have never told anyone ever. It was simultaneously the most shameful, embarrassing and the most enlightening experience of my life and I sincerely hope by telling it you can gain from my experience.
My little brother had some issues as a teen and ended up running away from home. Well, he borrowed someones cell phone one day and I was home to answer the call. He said he was ok and stuff, we talked for a minute and he hung up. I had to tell our parents of course, and I was asked to call the number back to see if whoevers phone it was could give us information on my brother's whereabouts. I did, and the guy was no help. I then got involved with talking to the police to try to track him down. They wanted to know about the phone guy. I said "it sounded like a black guy". I was pretty adamant about that. Next day, I go to talk with the officer in person. She was a black woman. I was....mortified. I just got slapped in the face with my racist attitude. I had told this woman, who was black, unbeknowst to me (she was a cop...and didn't "sound black" at all), that I was sure I had talked to a black guy on the phone yesterday. I though I was not racist....I thought I was just being logical because the guy sounded black...according to my limited "knowledge" of black people. I meant no harm or offense when I said he sounded black! But at that moment I realized how little my intent mattered, how ignorant I was and how much I probably hurt that woman when I said that. She didn't "sound black". I legit thought she was a white lady. Holy shit, what have I done?
I could have avoided confronting what a stupid jerk I was by rationalizing it with stereotypes, I mean what...aren't the majority who "sound black" actually black?? but no kidding at that moment I did have a major revalation. I WAS a jerk moron insensitive ass. Even ifI WAS right and the guy on the phone was black, I still made someone feel bad. Being right in any sexist or racist situation still only produces more hurt and suffering than anything. That was my moment of clarity and incentive to change...I never intended harm or thought I hurt anyone and I never considered myself racist but I was way wrong. Just a thought to consider what you're saying, how it cAn hurt and the cost of being "right". Even if we said 70% of the people who sound black are black, what did I accomplish by saying I thought he was black? All I really did was make myself look like an ass and hurt someones feelings over stupid stereotypes and my limited experience. Never again...
Often it is personal choices that contribute to it. Participating in crime? Aggression and fighting?
My comparison weighs up. The whole point is that there's often pressures and forces that cause people to make certain "decisions" (I quote that because it's not always really a free choice when there's so much influence involved or when you don't even realize you have a choice).
There absolutely is forces against women asking for more money. There is reasons why men and women "choose" careers and why those careers pay how they do. There is pressure on women to have children. Men want children too, you know. Why is it assumed that women take a huge hit career-wise to attend to household and child issues? Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this assumption.
However hard or easy the physical tasks of raising a family are is irrelevant. Family should come first before serving some company. We should encourage that. Mothers AND fathers should be involved as much as possible without the negative repercussions.
First world countries are, for the most part, not overpopulated nor contributing to global overpopulation.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Participation in violence is still not a personal choice to have a higher level of violence put against you. That's like saying because you take part in a heated discussion which is getting everyone angry that you're making a personal choice to have violence inflicted on you simply because it's a possible outcome.
Unless men were somehow being told by society that they should demand higher pay then I'm not sure how these forces can make two different outcomes like that. It could also be down to biological aspects, such as testosterone levels making you take more or less risks, which not accepting a job unless you have a higher pay is a risk to take of rejection. What influences are you talking about exactly here?
What reasons are there for men picking certain careers, same goes for women? Again, I'd say testosterone may have something to do with it, hence why more men are likely to go in to riskier careers aswell as more physical ones. Not sure what you mean by why those careers pay the way they do, though. If you could elaborate.
I'm not entirely sure where the pressure of women having children comes from. Maybe it's simply because I'm not a woman but as part of the society that apparently does this I haven't noticed it. Possibly because it's the norm for women to have children that it's expected? Which it's simple enough to just not follow those expectations.
Why is it expected for women to attend to the household and child issues? I'd suppose it's because on average men are more likely to work in harder and riskier jobs and more likely to be the bread winner and so spend more time at work and doing harder work on top of that as the woman so due to the man on average that is bringing in more money to provide which results in more work, it's understandable that the female would compensate by doing extra work at home. Ofcourse, same goes for men if the sexes are reversed.
Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this. Meeeeeh. On one hand I can see that happening and think it's wrong. On the other I can understand it. Women can go on maternity leave and do so far more than men go on paternity leave if it's available. So essentially, by hiring a woman, they're taking a gamble for a certain period of time of them hiring someone who won't take that long pay-leave or someone who would. My view for that would be that maternity leave should either be made to go on for a far smaller period of time or it shouldn't be accepted at all, which would eliminate the whole issue of taking that gamble which the employer may have to pay for an employees personal life choices. That way that assumption would go away mostly if not entirely due to that gamble no longer being an issue. Same would go for paternity leave.
You say about how family should come first and it seems like you don't realize (I may be mistaken, so don't bite my head off over this) that a lot of the times work comes first so that the family comes first, if that makes sense. They need the money to provide for their family, you can't really have one without the other unless you're on some sort of government benefits.
I don't have an issue with people being mothers or fathers before anything else even if I think it's easier in comparisson to a career but I also think that people juggling family life and a career are at the risk of having their career effecting their family or their family effecting their career. You can have both if done properly, sometimes even do extremely well in both, but there are risks and troubles along the way.
Pssht, you say that but what about 'dem illegal aliens? THEY TOOK UR JERBZ!
--
SecretIdentity
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
The point here is to examine the forces behind the choices and realize not all choices are made freely. You can explain away a situation by pointing out choices made but that's not good enough and it's often not fair, as I just showed you with the example of dead men. I could simply say more men die because of choices they make, that's all, end of discussion- but that's unfair, it's callous, and it doesn't truly examine or help solve the problem. Obviously we need to ask why men are making such choices, what pressures are involved and how can we help.
Your opinions here seem to come from a place of upholding the status quo. Try asking why things are how they are and if it's really right or good, or "not that bad", rather. For examples, ask why is it ok to punish people for having a family? Why is it normal or ok for men to spend so much time away from home or children? Could more people work from home? More flexible schedules? Pay people a decent wage? How can workplaces be more family-friendly? Less stressful? Allow more for personal life while not taking a heavy toll on finances or professional success? And so on. How can we help end discrimination? How do we stop holding ourselves and others back with these heavily ingrained gender roles? Those are all questions worth thinking about.
TERKERJERB!