Study uses the most sophisticated social analytic techniques to chart women's persecution in the workplace. Shockingly finds they are indistinguishable from men in how they are treated. Argues that wage difference must be due to bias.

NebulousASK · 2017-11-02T18:54:44+00:00

The irony is that the data is right there, and they acknowledge it, but refuse to accept it.

They note that women tend to leave the company right in the middle of their seniority, presumably to have a family. Their response is not, "Okay, they are making different choices and therefore getting a different result." Instead it's, "Why aren't men doing this as much as women? Sexism!?!?!?"

They note that higher levels of the job require increasingly more dedicated employees and higher workloads. Again, they could say, "Okay, more men are interested in investing this extra time and effort than women." Instead they suggest the company should make the job easier so women want to do it.

This is getting ridiculous. More and more data are confirming the simple fact that men and women want different things out of work, and that each are being treated fairly according to their own choices. But left-leaning groups just absolutely refuse to accept this.

_Sitty_Shoonerism_ · 2017-11-02T22:19:11+00:00

Our analysis suggests that the difference in promotion rates between men and women in this company was due not to their behavior but to how they were treated.

UGGGHH. Proving one theory wrong among a myriad of competing theories does NOT automatically make another theory correct.

Of course we all know why this happens. There's a limited number of "approved" theories and when one theory tanks they just jump ship to the next one until that one tanks, repeat. I pointed this out to someone else recently: the concept of gender bias persists because it's non falsifiable. You have to prove everything else wrong first, which is impossible, before it's possible to change their minds. And even if you could do that they'd still say "well there must be bias somewhere we just haven't found it yet"

Imnotmrabut · 2017-11-02T19:16:49+00:00

Another feminist pedicure with a revolver.

DuplicatesBot · 2017-11-02T18:47:11+00:00

Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content:

News flash! Scientists discover women are treated differently at work! Who knew! on /r/TrollXChromosomes with 415 karma (created at 2017-10-24 23:56:28 by /u/VulvaAutonomy)
Unreal: study uses the most sophisticated social analytic techniques to chart women's persecution in the workplace. Shockingly finds they are indistinguishable from men in how they are treated. Argues that wage difference must be due to bias therefore (no proof). Confirmation bias much? on /r/JordanPeterson with 113 karma (created at 2017-11-02 19:01:59 by /u/yoinkel)
We Asked Men and Women to Wear Sensors at Work. They Act the Same but Are Treated Very Differently on /r/TwoXChromosomes with 0 karma (created at 2017-10-25 10:24:06 by /u/Doxycyclist)
We Asked Men and Women to Wear Sensors at Work. They Act the Same but Are Treated Very Differently on /r/psychologyofsex with 6 karma (created at 2017-11-02 19:24:42 by /u/psychologyofsex)
Scientists perform an actual study to validate everyone's assumptions: Men and Women actually act the same at work, but are treated differently on /r/femmit with 18 karma (created at 2017-10-28 02:00:59 by /u/czarinna)
We Asked Men and Women to Wear Sensors at Work. They Act the Same but Are Treated Very Differently on /r/misc with 1 karma (created at 2017-10-26 07:02:12 by /u/cos)

^{^I} ^{^am} ^{^a} ^{^bot} ^{^{FAQ-Code-Bugs-Suggestions-Block}}

^{^Now} ^{^you} ^{^can} ^{^remove} ^{^the} ^{^comment} ^{^by} ^{^replying} ^{^delete!}

BlueOrange22 · 2017-11-02T20:03:46+00:00

"Shockingly" to others, not to us. It's very telling/annoying every I read a study showing a "surprising" result that has of course been common knowledge in the MRM for years.

LabTech41 · 2017-11-02T22:25:00+00:00

I wonder what the over/under was for the team finishing this research, realizing that it totally debunked all their hypotheses, and trying to bury and burn the whole project utterly. You can tell they're trying HARD to spin information that clearly shows they came into this with the wrong thinking into something that at least suggests they still might have a case.

My guess is that they felt they HAD to release the results, if only to get more grant money. Anyone that releases that much money to have that many people sampled that extensively is going to be looking for results, no matter how much the people with pre-conceived ideas want to make the truth go away.

Sadly, quantifying how wrong they are won't change a thing for them; they're committed to a narrative because it suits their purposes. It's like religious hucksters who refuse to admit all the proof that their claims are bogus; they've got too much riding on a lie being maintained that the last thing they want is for those they fleece to accept the truth.

Comments