TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Feminist group admits 'pay gap' is caused by women's choices

Mark_Dan

September 23, 2017
5064 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9827
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Feminist group admits 'pay gap' is caused by women's choices
Author

Mark_Dan

Upvotes 5064
Comments 323
Date September 23, 2017 8:55 AM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/71x8mq/feminist_group_admits_pay_gap_is_caused_by_womens/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminist-group-admits-pay-gap-is-caused-by-womens.1175309
https://theredarchive.com/post/1175309
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by Mark_Dan

Lesbian couple who beat their 5-year-old son with a hammer, duct-taped his eyes shut and kicked him in the groin in a brutal attack that caused him to suffer two strokes are jailed for 20 years

5267 upvotes
September 21, 2017
/r/MensRights

Happy women's equality day

907 upvotes
August 27, 2017
/r/MensRights

Its over! Education Department rescinds Title IX "Rape" Kangaroo Courts

348 upvotes
September 22, 2017
/r/MensRights

Woman who faked her own kidnapping on Facebook is behind bars

56 upvotes
October 1, 2017
/r/MensRights

Michelle Obama: 'People Don't Trust Politics' Because GOP Is 'All Men, All White'

56 upvotes
October 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

Police: Woman shot, killed sleeping boyfriend before dismembering body

49 upvotes
September 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

'Jealous' Wife Allegedly Attacked Husband with Minivan at Swinger's Party

38 upvotes
September 28, 2017
/r/MensRights

The Institutionalized Wrongthink Is Getting Ridiculous - Male MMA Fighter that Identifies As Female Literally Breaks Womans Skull in MMA Match - Youtube Keeps Deleting This Video

33 upvotes
October 4, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]fengpi 551 points552 points553 points 8 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

women can’t avoid “societal bias by choosing a career in an occupation that is higher paying.”

No. No they can't. I guess they'll just have to take that higher pay and suffer.

[–]zurrain 57 points58 points59 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'll never understand the feminist position of pretending like they have no personal agency or responsibility in their choices.

[–]fengpi 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It must feel very liberating to always be as pure and untainted as triple-distilled springtime rainwater.

[–]Avannar 226 points227 points228 points 8 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

They can also CHANGE that societal bias themselves by choosing those careers. The power is theirs if they choose to wield it.

[–]fengpi 266 points267 points268 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

It's much easier to use their preferred weapon: the blamethrower. FOOSH!

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Cumthrower.

[–]TheJazzProphet 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ehh...

[–]Gambitpond 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most people just say penis

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually call mine "Archduke One-eye."

[–]BobLeBoeuf 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Spceballs the Blamethrower!! (the kids love this one!)

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My years of laughing at that movie are coming to a middle.

[–]lulz3r 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am going to use ‘blamethrower’ from now. It really captures the essence of feminism.

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"This is a blamenwerfer. It werfs blamen."

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Heh.

[–]MJVerostek 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That would require them to take the responsibility of both failures as well as the successes.

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I think this sub is mostly crap, but there is some truth to this.

Conversely, why don't more men choose to be elementary school teachers?

[–]wobernein 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Its a hassle to have people think you want to molest children I imagine.

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

...I guess. So male principals have to deal with the same stigma?

[–]wobernein 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

probably not as bad. A janitor at elementary school isnt thought to be pedophile as much if they keep to themselves. If they take an interest in a childs well being than every goes on high alert. Same probably goes for a principal.

[–]fengpi 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Maybe (in part) because a male elementary schoolteacher won't earn enough money to buy a wife.

Sorry, I meant "be considered worthy of a wife."

Pfft, who am I kidding? I meant what I said the first time.

[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

buy

what?

[–]fengpi 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In case you haven't noticed, a lot of women are attracted to men with money. An offensive thing to say out loud, I know.

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You want a woman who works or stays home, honest question.

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The wife I do have-- stunned? shocked? thunderstruck?-- works part-time. This was decided by mutual agreement rather than by my patriarchal arm-twisting and Svengali-like mind-control. We've been in situations where we both worked full time and this is the arrangement we both preferred.

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

no, I'm not stunned, not judging.

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We just think it's best to have a living arrangement where one of us is periodically free during business hours to take care of important errands every so often. We flipped a coin and I lost.

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, they used to be the majority. But then it was argued that girls needed role models to look up to and a push was began for female teachers. Women got active pushed ahead of men and even after they surpassed men in elementary teacher positions, nobody thought, "maybe we need to hit the brakes." By the time they stopped actively favoring women for teaching children, women were 70% of teachers in the US and rising and the trend didn't stop right away. It took years to level off and it's still high.

As a result, we have a stereotype/stigma on the subject that says women like teaching children and children like learning from maternal figures, and men don't teach kids. A stigma cropped up in the 90s that even implied men who want to teach elementary school must be pedophiles.

All of the same issues women face in entering male-dominated fields exist for men, but in the case of men, there's no social movement pushing for their acceptance. So men who want to nurse, teach kids, do social work, etc, typically enter those fields as outsiders and struggle to find a place without many resources.

Anecdotally, I knew a guy who wanted to be a nurse but after endless questions about why not a doctor, why not an EMT, was he just trying to get with the girls, etc, he switched to pharmaceuticals.

[+]flamingspew -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Till some lazy fuck puts a parasite in their belly then refuses to get a real job.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points43 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fucking crazy, works both ways. Don't want kids with lazy worthless men? Stop fucking lazy worthless men. Set your standards a bit higher.

[–]UtahStateAgnostics 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Weird, right?

[+]flamingspew -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I thought men want them to set their standards lower to lower the suicide rate in males?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Contrary to the narrative presented by the "Media" and other articles discussing this subreddit Most men here tend to want an equal in their partner. We don't want a little girl who's hand has to be held constantly nor do we want an overbearing cunt that feels verbally beating their spouse daily is the right thing to do. But to each their own.

I'll take my partner that is self reliant and confident you can have the pond scum.

Also your suicide rate comment has to be one of the most Mind numbingly stupid things I have ever read and I've visited /r/politics. Have you recently sustained a head injury? you should probably get that checked out.

[–]egnaro2007 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn you've got a lot of penis related posts

[–]wrcu 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Envy, maybe? Or secret fetish....

[+]Rolten -23 points-22 points-21 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Things aren't exactly that simple though. You can't just tell all black persons in the States to work hard at school and thus get themselves out of poverty. Individuals will make individual choices based on their environment, and telling feminists 'yer but you just have to make different choices' isn't really a just argument.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Things aren't exactly that simple though. You can't just tell all black persons in the States to work hard at school and thus get themselves out of poverty.

The guidelines for success are well established. There isn't some mythical secret being kept from black people about it. I mean FFS look at asians and even indian immigrants. These groups have the ability to come to america and prosper.

So, either white america is selectively racist and just likes to screw with blacks, or there are certain aspects to certain cultures that predispose them to developing generational wealth and success.

Individuals will make individual choices based on their environment, and telling feminists 'yer but you just have to make different choices' isn't really a just argument.

if you do as you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't just tell all black persons in the States to work hard at school and thus get themselves out of poverty.

Non american confirmed.

[–]surly_chemist 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But You are part of other people's environment. Telling people to make different choices can have an impact on their decision making.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Blacks who spent just as much time studying as Asians do end up with similar test scores.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Surely the bigger question is why careers where traditionally more women work are paid less than those that more men work in? Which is more important - recovering from an accident or buying another computer game?

[–]neveragoodtime 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think the point is that 100 years ago, all careers were male careers. So when given the opportunity to pursue their own careers, why did women choose the ones that were traditionally paid less? These were low paying careers even when they were dominated by men, so don’t bring gender into it just to label it sexist.

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There were many women in careers in 1917. It was during world war one. Women worked in the factories, farmed the fields and nursed on the battle fields. It is true that many women were allowed access to careers they had not been given access to before. And when the men returned they had to give up these roles. However prior to this women worked as teachers and nurses and midwives, cooks and cleaners. They were never well paid jobs. Women now can access more roles, however, in many roles it is very difficult to get promoted if you take time off to have children. Hence why so few men do so.

[–]neveragoodtime 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, cooks and cleaners were never well paid jobs, even when men did them. When men returned, women chose to give up those poor paying jobs to be at home for their husbands and to raise children, which seems like a financially sound decision to make. I don’t think so few men take time off to be with their kids because it makes it difficult to get promotions. I think men are expected to get promotions, so their wives can be home with the kids. Therefore, men don’t have the luxury of taking time off, as women do.

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of women did not want to give up their jobs after world war one. They were forced to. More women than usual were unmarried and without children because so many men didn't return. They could have worked but were told to leave. Taking time off to raise a baby is no luxury. Babies are exhausting!

[–]Bomlanro 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Easy -- buying another computer game.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

More people can apply a dressing and take vitals than can program a game.

It's simple supply and demand.

[+][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hmmm and yet we have a national shortage of health professionals and huge waiting lists. Not sure so many people are dying to get hold of the next game.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We might have a shortage of certain physicians(although my own regression analysis found doctors per capita variance had little effect on cost of healthcare, so the impact is small, nonexistent, or localized to specific fields and not captured in the aggregate), and we have a high turnover of nurses.

Doctors are paid more than nurses, and male nurses have lower rates of turnover-and also work more. Further female nurses work more socioable schedules and take more time off. Male nurses uncoincidentally are paid more on average than female nurses.

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You make some really interesting points in your post but most interesting to me of all is where you sourced your data? Seriously.

[–]Halafax 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Surely the bigger question is why careers where traditionally more women work are paid less than those that more men work in?

Well, there is the "magical thinking" explanation that men somehow create value with their penises. Feminism likes this one a lot. Secret men's handshake or something.

I think a better explanation is that society judges men more stringently on wage than it does women. So men choose wage over quality of life. Work more hours, seek more responsibility, accept more stress, more dangerous conditions, more debilitating work...

Men follow value. If you see men streaming into a position, that's because they think it's a means toward a higher wage. Because men are then in competition for the position, the quality of life it offers always drops. Someone will do more to get the job.

[+][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We are in agreement that value is about perception. In my eyes men are worth far more than their capacity to earn and jobs creating computer games are less valuable than nursing and involve less stress, less dangerous conditions and less debilitating work. I can understand the temptation to chase value either for prestige or pressure to provide. I don't think we value the right things sometimes.

[–]DaeusPater 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

something called demand and supply

[–]MikeyNYC1 53 points54 points55 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

When I think of "pay gap" I think of CEO vs employee...how on earth did we convince each other that instead this is a gender battle?

[–]Flaktrack 43 points44 points45 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Misdirection funded by the rich?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Definately. Most obvious example of it working perfectly is when everyone was getting upset that Jennifer Lawrence (I think) got payed a bit less for a film while completely ignoring the fact she still made far more than anyone arguing about her could ever hope to even see.

[–]Mens-Advocate 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Jennifer Lawrence (I think) got payed a bit less for a film

Actually, she didn't get paid less. She lied. On a per-hour basis, she got paid far more than the males in the same film.

[–]yvaN_ehT_nioJ 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not a controversial statement, but Jennifer Lawrence just doesn't seem to be a very pleasant person from what I've seen of her.

[+]NoImBlackAndDisagree -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

funded by the (((rich)))

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Does nobody get sarcasm anymore?

[–]Flaktrack 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That could just as easily not be sarcasm these days. I had someone in another post here tell me I was unintelligent because I didn't think the jews run the world.

[–]fengpi 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

how on earth did we feminists convince each other everyone that instead this is a gender battle?

I fixed that for you and suggested an answer to your question to boot. Thanks are unnecessary.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (54 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 73 points74 points75 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is hilarious. I've been on the inside of corporate hiring. Any hiring manager with a few beers in him and no one around as a witness will admit that women and minorities get "bonus points."

Women are discriminated against?

I've literally witnessed HR bump a lesser qualified "diverse" hire, aka someone with a vagina, over a more qualified white male. No other reason given than, "diversity".

White guy had more experience, better grades, and interviewed much better.

I'm one of their highest performing employees, and this is part of the reason why i'm leaving. "If you'll do it to that white guy, you'll do it to me."

[–]Professor_Yaffle 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When you go, make sure that you tell them. Make sure they understand the exact cause-and-effect at play here. If you're as high-performing as you say you are, it might just cause a couple of people to rethink their positions.

[–]fengpi 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm one of their highest performing employees,

That must be because of your male privilege. Your actual performance is mediocre, but everyone judges you more positively and clients will give you more money because they become gullible and easily-manipulated when talking to a man. If you were to place a bag of vomit on the table, it would sell for $5,000 a pound because it is your male privilege vomit o' power. You fail upwards, but hardworking women who are more intelligent and talented than you toil in underpaid obscurity down in the boiler-room and eat gruel during their lunch breaks which are 77% as long as your lunch breaks.

"If you'll do it to that white guy, you'll do it to me."

You are protected by male privilege. That sucker does everything! It also removes grass stains from denim, brings your floor to a bright shine and comes with a coupon for Campbell's Chunky™ Sirloin Soup!

Edit: Downvotes, eh? Should I have added in the /s? Usually I don't need to do that.

[–]jostler57 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I understood the sarcasm - don't worry, we don't all just read the first two sentences.

Have an upvote!

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

not the only issue where feminists take the unknowable middle and declare that it is victimizing women, see: the majority of rape accusations that no one will ever know are true or false

[–]jgzman 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Of course anyone would rather sit at home and watch children, than be a parking attendant.

Demonstrably false. I've done both, and it's the little freezing box with exhaust fumes for me, thank you.

Other then that, you've got the right idea.

[–]Ithelda 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a woman and I haven't worked as a parking attendant, but I'm willing to bet I'd rather do that than take care of some of the kids I've watched all day. Taking care of multiple children drove me insane. Solitude sounds much nicer.

[–]MagicTampon4 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Kids are fun, if you'd have the chance to be around them.

Of course, you may choose not to in this "listen and believe" environment when it comes to false allegations against men. Which you would be correct to take into account.

[–]jgzman 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I just don't like kids. I'd rather sit in the box and read.

[–]Rumpadunk 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It is also possible there is more than 7% accounted for by other factors and a negative amount by discrimination.

I imagine there is such thing, and women gets bonus points often due to legal requirements or because of would-be social backlash. I've also seen men held to higher standards than women in workplaces.

It's also possible other things to be factored in make the difference higher and women are discriminated against more than 7%.

[–]L3tum 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

7% of the observed pay gap. How much was that again, I haven't checked on the most up to date number? 13%? So 7% of 13%, so a pay gap of 0,91% might be due to discriminatione? Am I reading that right?

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It is just as likely that the residual 7% is due to factors that have not or are unable to be controlled for, as it is due to discrimination.

You beat me to it. You dotard, you.

parking lot attendants (usually men) are paid more to watch cars than full-time child care workers (usually women) are paid to care for children

This comment seems to be more of a critique against capitalism itself and its crazy penchant for valuing certain things more than other things. See, we can produce skyscrapers for insurance companies and jewel-filled watches for the rich but not (sad violin) lifesaving medicines for poor children in Malawi (sniffle) and people value parking lots over child care women's paychecks!

[+]CottonStig -24 points-23 points-22 points 8 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

The point of the male parking lot attendant and female child care worker was that people are paid more to watch an object in a parking lot than an actual human bean that will shape the future. Which i didn't know and am actually blown away from, vehicles can be replaced, humans can not.

There are professional establishments that take care of children, and that is what the article is referring to.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Earnings are not determined by how important work people do, neither are they determined by how much work is put into manufacturing something (like Marx thought). We earn (on average) according to our productivity (which is determined on the job market, not by calculations or individual or even cultural values).

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Siganid 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Plus, one of the values being forgotten here is prestige.

Not many people brag about watching cars, but people are proud of childcare. There is a non monetary value in being proud of your job.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, but you really can't measure productivity outside the markets. I know that there are ways to do exactly that (Taylorism, for example) but if the output doesn't sell you weren't productive in reality, just within the "imaginary" productivity system. So, in a bigger picture, productive people aren't productive if they don't create value (though this can be argued against, it still explains wages very well).

[–]WikiTextBot 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Parable of the broken window

The parable of the broken window was introduced by Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society. The parable, also known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy, seeks to show how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are "unseen" or ignored.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27

[–]CottonStig 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, i understand i suppose. I just feel like it's such a backwards system with money going predominantly to the wrong places. Thank you for your response

[–]CatManDontDo 42 points43 points44 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Lol @ human bean.

Also from a pure numbers standpoint I think we make more humans every minute than cars.

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mmmm... human beans....

[–]yarow12 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obligatory response.

[+]chaun2 -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Possibly true, though as more countries pass through the industrial revolution, and are brought up to first world status, the overall population should trend towards 0% growth

[–]rooolng 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That's only because spousal and child support laws discourage many from having children, or at least more that 1-2. There were big booms in the industrial age before men were turned into wage slaves on the whims of the fickle women that now primarily initiate divorces.

Its common to see families with 5+ children in countries that don't have strict support laws or do not enforce them at all. Doesn't have anything to do with where they are on the technology scale.

I would rather see governments give money to single mothers rather than support jobless immigrants. Same effect of population growth.

[–]chaun2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it actually has more to do with better education rates, and low infant mortality rates. When 4/5 of your kids don't make it to 20 years old, it makes sense biologically speaking to have large families. When your child dying is a statistically rare thing, it makes more sense biologically to nutrure just one or two children

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unless youre perfectly happy being poor in which case you have 5 children and a wife who never works, like many minorities do in my country.

[–]Strayed54321 -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do...do you understand that there was a massive population spike in the US after both the first and second industrial revolutions? There's a reason why last generation is called "the baby boomer" generation.

[–]chaun2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I do, I also understand what statistical trends mean when looking at a data curve

[–]XGC75 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, we're looking at a ~10 billion person stabilized world population. Considering also the habitable land across the world.

[–]NoSourCream 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Nuclear weapons are just objects that can be replaced. Better cut the persons pay whose job it is to look after those, i mean, its not like they have to look after something actually important, like kids right?

[+]CottonStig -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Cars and nuclear weapons are obviously one and the same and do not require any different regulations. Think man. Just use that noodle of yours.

[–]NoSourCream 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't out to prove they are similar. I was proving that your justification was nonsense.

Besides, a parking lot attendant isn't getting payed to protect your car you dolt. They're getting payed to make sure YOU pay.

[–]CottonStig -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I was only using them as a comparison because the medium did initially, then in your response you mentioned it. I still dont think someone making sure a parking spot gets paid for is more valuable than someone shaping our children for the future. Your primary care giver when you're unwell.

[–]NoSourCream 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They're just too "apples vs. oranges" to be compared.

Yes: one baby > one car

But you're comparing tens of thousands of cars to a couple kids. You're also comparing the responsibility of protecting an asset and collecting your employers income to just protecting an asset.

If a nanny had to take care of little Jimmy Smith while also being held accountable to Mr. and Mrs. Smiths incomes, you can bet your ass they'd be payed more than a parking lot attendant. But they don't so they won't. End of story.

[–]CottonStig 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The child care worker ( professional workplace with multiple children a day) i'm sure cycles through a fair amount of children, the same way a parking lot attendant cycles through cars.

Also cars aren't around nearly as long as children will be so it really is a difficult comparison. Thank you for your responses even though we don't see eye to eye

[–]NoSourCream 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Appreciate the responses as well. Sorry for calling you a dolt btw.

[–]CottonStig 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No worries friend!

[–]2xedo 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Realistically unless it's a tiny parking lot it's unlikely a daycare has nearly the same amount of children as the parking lot has cars, usually a reasonably sized daycare with even multiple staff only has 10-20 kids because each worker needs to be responsible for a certain amount of children. Meanwhile since cars usually don't run off and get into trouble on their own a single parking lot attendant can handle hundreds of cars by themselves.

but this is a difficult comparison because it's awfully focused and doesn't really cover any major disparities that could contribute to pay differences or discrimination.

[–]wrcu 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're forgetting the difference in the inherent risks involved between those two professions. How high is the risk of cancer from working with children, or the risk of being mugged at work? If we are going to use Parking Attendants as an example, you have to look at these factors.

[–]PillTheRed 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to utopian land! Where the puppies are free and life always works out...

It's called supply and demand. More people are willing to work with kids in a safe and warm environment over suck exhaust fumes and possibly get robbed.

[–]zeshon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

human bean

[–]ChestBras 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of the [person doing job 1] and [person doing job 2] was that people are paid more for [job 1] than [job 2].

My guess is that there are more people willing/available to do job 2, than people willing to do job 1.

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of the male parking lot attendant and female child care worker was that people are paid more to watch an object in a parking lot than an actual human bean that will shape the future. Which i didn't know and am actually blown away from, vehicles can be replaced, humans can not.

Yeah, damn the patriarchy and it's crazy habit of pricing some goods and services differently from other goods and services. It's almost as if playing with children is more inherently fulfilling and enjoyable with many more people willing to take the job than is taking care of cars! (Shakes tiny fist)

Also, Rowan Atkinson is a pretty good human bean.

[–]Juan_Golt 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not a fair comparison. How many cars can be managed per lot attendant? Because I doubt Jane Q. Childcare could watch 500 kids.

[–]CottonStig 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course not! But cars predominantly are very still for the time they are parked, whereas a child could have separation anxiety, lack of discipline, and countless other different problems or situations that would make that job more strenuous in my opinion.

[–]Googlesnarks 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

what's the likelihood of you getting robbed at gunpoint whole sitting on your ass pushing DVDs into the TV?

if you even go that far. I bet it's mostly Netflix now. you don't even have to bend over at the waist.

that's why they get paid more.

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As a father I'd prefer my kids to have no salable value.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I could get down with being able to sell kids. It's hard work making them, but I would put in the hours if I could crank em out for profit.

Obviously I mean to sell them to people who cannot create their own children, but would be great parrnts otherwise.

[–]bombjamas 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

*being

There are many more people than cars.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The point of the male parking lot attendant and female child care worker was that people are paid more to watch an object in a parking lot than an actual human bean that will shape the future.

Women shouldn't be working and rear their children rather paying a teen to watch them.

[–]girlwriteswhat 75 points76 points77 points 8 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

They're still making assumptions about that last 7 to 8% that they can't properly substantiate, as far as I can tell. It's not explainable by the factors they included, but that doesn't mean that all relevant factors influencing pay were included.

[–]Terribledragon4Hire 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I read one article that it came down to men generally being more aggressive negotiators.

[–]Aeponix 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, that's a big one. It's also noticeable for us less aggressive men.

I'm not sure where I stand on mitigating that difference. I do think some workers are worth more than others in the same job, but there are some ridiculous cases I've seen where the difference is a little absurd. Co-workers should feel like a team, in my opinion, and if one is so vastly outperforming the rest, then you need to sit everyone down and figure out why, and what you can do to bring the rest up to par.

If one person can do the job that well, the rest should be able to be near their performance at least. Why would you continue to let them do so poorly for a fraction of the pay?

[–]Terribledragon4Hire 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people are naturally skilled for certain jobs and deserve more pay. Or at the very least can ask for it.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nah, we need to bring down the top performers to the level of the worst.

/s

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or as Thomas Sowell sarcastically asked an SJW: "You want a program to remove the bottom 20%?". (That's not an exact quote because flawed memory).

[–]Cryhavok101 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why I think performance bonuses shouldn't be included in the studies.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is where unions come in.

[–]JackBond1234 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the thing. The only legitimate change they can make is to stop instances of inequitable treatment when they identify it. They seem to be actively avoiding that and trying to take inequitable action whenever they see an unequal outcome.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

They're still making assumptions about that last 7 to 8% that they can't properly substantiate

Honestly they do this with everything.

Black people get rejected for loans more often. Well I really, really, FEEL like it is due to racism. So therefore my "scientific" study will cite racism as the cause based on those feelings I have about what is inside other people's heads.

[+]Cultjam -25 points-24 points-23 points 8 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

It has been proven. I actually met a broker who, out of nowhere, casually bragged about maliciously rejecting a business loan to a female black applicant who he described as highly qualified. He thought it was hilarious. I can only hope his was one of the banks the FBI busted for red lining in Chicago a few years later.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

It has been proven

...lol k. Thanks for the anecdote. Not sure you understand the meaning of the word "proof" though.

[+]Cultjam -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

That I met someone who was involved is anecdotal, but the FBI cases themselves are the proof.

If you’re not actually being deliberately obtuse, try reading up on redlining.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, there is still no proof in anything you linked for racism.

Historically yes.

Currently? Show me the racist law or written bank policy, and I'll be against it. Otherwise what you have are just theories.

Banks redline neighborhoods that they know are unlikely to repay loans. These neighborhoods happen to be black.

See what I did there? My logic is just as valid as using "racism" as the answer to everything.

I mean a supremarket choosing to be located far away from the hood is "redlining" by your wikipedia definition.....like, give me a fucking break.

The idea that sociology is a science is one of the most insidious and intellectually dishonest notions of our time.

[–]Benjamminmiller -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

The issue is primarily historical. Blacks were only given mortgages to live in poorer neighborhoods. Generations of wealth were dictated by lending discrimination.

The idea that just because something happened in the past it's racism has ended is one of the most insidious and intellectually dishonest notions of our time.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

The perpetual, nebulous, unquantifiable victimhood is actually creating racism against black people.

Again, show me a current racist law, or shut up and go get a job like the rest of us.

[–]Benjamminmiller -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Hundred of years of slavery, a hundred years of Jim Crow, and a legacy of equality metrics that put blacks categorically behind whites.

The issue isn't laws. The laws have been fixed. The issue is generations of wealth, social treatment, and assholes like you who can look at the state of equality in this county (see lifetime earnings, encarceration rates, education rates) and place all the blame on blacks, despite our brutally racist history.

The rallying cry of the 21st century racist is "but but but show me the laws", as though you need to be screaming "get the nigger" to be a racist.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Hundred of years of slavery, a hundred years of Jim Crow, and a legacy of equality metrics that put blacks categorically behind whites

So what do you want? A handout?

Show me a group of people who haven't been terribly mistreated at some point or other. The Irish were indentured servants. Does that mean that anything bad that happens to me can be blamed on someone else?

blame on blacks, despite our brutally racist histo

See that is just it. Black people are to blame for certain things, and saying that doesn't make you an "asshole". Yes, racism exists, even today. yes, black people have been mistreated.

So what? You going to wallow in self-pity for the rest of your life?

You think Asians haven't been mistreated in America? And yet they are now the highest earning racial group in the US, surpassing even whites.

The rallying cry of the 21st century racist is "but but but show me the laws", as though you need to be screaming "get the nigger" to be a racist

Anyone who questions the narrative that blacks have no culpability in black issues is a racist now? See, that is why no one cares about racism anymore, you have overused and misused the term so much that it is completely fucking meaningless.

[–]Aivias 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The federal governments involvement in giving poor people mortgages helped cause the 2008 financial crash, sometimes its not worth the problems to lend poor people huge sums of money when its just a fact people cant pay them back.

[–]Benjamminmiller -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This goes back to the end of WW2.

This had nothing to do with their ability to pay back their loans.

[–]RubixCubeDonut 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you’re not actually being deliberately obtuse

Downvoting you for this line alone.

He's not being deliberately obtuse... you are being deliberately vague and an asshole. YOU are the one who said there was proof and, instead of giving us any indication whatsoever what was going on in your fucking head you instead decided to give us an anecdote.

The fact that you're so scummy that you'd deliberately push the responsibility for your blatant communication goof onto others is degrading the conversation.

[+]Cultjam -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I gave proof. Related to that proof I added that I had personal knowledge that it had happened. It’s not complicated.

This is a weekly circle jerk on Reddit, the conversation was degraded from the start of it.

[–]Amart194 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Reddit itself is a weekly circlejerk and every conversation is degraded similarly due to that fact, let's not pretend this is any worse.

[+]Cultjam -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit.

[–]RubixCubeDonut 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I gave proof.

You gave proof after the fact you fucking moron.

LOOK AT YOUR GODDAMN POST.. LOOK AT IT. There is NO proof in there whatsoever. Your "proof" had to come afterwards when people took your post as you presented it because YOU, and ONLY FUCKING YOU, gave absolutely no indication whatsoever what you were think constitutes proof.

Reflect on your own idiocy and maybe become a decent human you lowlife scumbag.

[+]Cultjam -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You need to go back to school.

[–]HelperBot_ 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining


HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 114148

[–]WikiTextBot 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Redlining

In the United States, redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas. While the best known examples of redlining have involved denial of financial services such as banking or insurance, other services such as health care or even supermarkets have been denied to residents (or in the case of retail businesses like supermarkets, simply located impractically far away from said residents) to result in a redlining effect. Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets particular neighborhoods that are predominantly nonwhite, not to deny residents loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than in a non-redlined neighborhood where there is more competition.

In the 1960s, a sociologist named John McKnight coined the term "redlining" to describe the discriminatory practice of fencing off areas where banks would avoid investments based on community demographics.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is there something wrong with choosing not to give a high risk loan to someone in a community which is unlikely to be able to repay it? Sure, some members of that community will outperform their peers. However, the risk is too high for a lending institution.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not just the institution, it's also really bad for the borrower to be burdened with loan payments - especially if their financial situation is precarious. The only time loans are sensible is if they're investment for some kind of business.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why payday loan businesses are thriving in low income communities. They don’t have to worry about the risk when the interest can become more than the original loan.

[–]Barrrcode 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It has been proven.

It is known.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats the rub of this kind of study. 93% vs 7% seems very shady, they may have had to make up discriminatory factors to make it seem like a pay gap due to discrimination still existed. im not saying they did by any means, and its been a consensus this myth has been a farce from the beginning, but there are dozens of factors they probably didnt factor in that should have been. raising awareness of this myth has done some good in spreading critical information.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Negotiation accounts for about 7-9%.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]1up_for_life 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This reminds me of when I worked in retail. I could set the signs in an entire department in the time it took my supervisor and manager to talk about their kidney stone issues. (both female btw)

[–]Pepper-Fox 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel the same working in a field, while all male, I'm the only one under 50.

[–]BloodFartTheQueefer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your fractions check out. Was that intentional? 2 : 1 ratio gives fractions of 2/3rds or more and 1/3rd or less.

[–]Swiss_Cheese9797 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What kinda place you work at?

[–]jayjester 114 points115 points116 points 8 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

It's a step in the right direction, even if the fact is that the pay gap is a fallacy.

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels 60 points61 points62 points 8 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

This is the extent of it being a fallacy. The wage gap does exist even with people within the same jobs and field. But it's minor and can be explained by other factors. So it exists... It just isn't an issue.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SpanishConqueror 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Please expand on this?

[–]CaptainBuddha 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure they're referring to how men get paid much less in these specific fields. It's /r/mensrights... so it wouldn't be complete without somebody saying stuff like this.

[–]SpanishConqueror 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure male pornstars get paid decently well, and even more so if they do gay stuff.

I am 100% unsurprised though that the vast majority of women earn more than men in porn. It's like professional sporta, people will pay for what they want to see.

If people wanna see the same hot chick, they are gonna pay her more. If they wanna see some dude suplex another dude, they'll pay him more.

Is that a pay gap? Sure, however, it's completly justified. Why would I pay $100 for something I wouldn't enjoy as much? If I can spend $100 and see a hot chick doing solo vs. paying $100 to see some dude jack it, I would rather pay the hot chick.

That just how economics works....

[–]CaptainBuddha 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't supporting that persons opinion, my view lines up with yours. This sub is rife with people pointing out justified "inequalities" as if one outweighs the other. I would fully expect women to be paid more in this example, just like men are paid more for being sperm donors... Downvotes happen when you don't echo the rest of the chamber.

[–]SpanishConqueror 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just wanted to add to your point, my b if it came across as rude

[–]CaptainBuddha 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No worries!

[–]idrinkniupvotethings 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bingo

[–]urammar -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

It literally doesn't, and if it did, it's the easiest crime in the entire world to prove.

It's totally illegal, and totally verifiable. Its literally easier to get away with murder.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Avannar 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It likely is a tiny bit due to gender. Too many studies have been done in which identical resumes submitted to a hundred companies, half with male names, half with female names, show a mild preference for males, even from female hiring managers, and even from "progressive" companies. Same with race. Identical resumes, stereotypical white names vs stereotypical black names. The white name resumes get between 10% and 50%(!) more replies and quicker replies.

This is one case where socialization is somewhat the cause. There's a vicious cycle in which one group gets slightly more chances to prove itself and has more positive stereotypes associated with it, so it excels a little bit more, which in turn drives more opportunity and positive associations, that other groups don't get just because of unfavorable comparison to the first group.

People associate the job role or the ideal interviewee with a stereotype, and the less well someone fits that stereotype, the less of a candidate they're considered to be, even if they're identical to the ideal candidate in all ways aside from aesthetic differences.

This doesn't just apply in job roles dominated by white males, of course. There are job roles stereotyped to women in which males are biased against, and job roles stereotyped to other ethnic groups in which whites are biased against.

[–]ColorMeOffended4 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

If it was truly due to gender, why do we see the opposite in several instances? I think that's an oversimplification of why those differences actually exist in those independent circumstances.

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As I said at the very end there, in some cases, the stereotype prefers non-males or non-whites. Nursing, teaching, etc. Increasingly in academia, there's a pro-girl bias that leads to identical papers being graded more harshly if a boy's name is on it vs when a girl's name is on it. Girls in school also benefit from a stereotype about passivity and politeness. When boys and girls misbehave in the same way, boys get punished more harshly.

[+]Mazuruu -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

why do we see the opposite in several instances?

The opposite of what exactly?

[–]superhobo666 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The pay gap narrative. Try paying attention to the topic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That there are several instances where women make more than their male counterparts. Was that even a genuine question?

[+]Mazuruu 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People associate the job role or the ideal interviewee with a stereotype, and the less well someone fits that stereotype, the less of a candidate they're considered to be, even if they're identical to the ideal candidate in all ways aside from aesthetic differences.

This doesn't just apply in job roles dominated by white males, of course. There are job roles stereotyped to women in which males are biased against, and job roles stereotyped to other ethnic groups in which whites are biased against.

Doesn't this answer your first question? I thought you ment something else because it was already answered in the post you replied to

[–]urammar 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

/u/MrPlaysWithSquirrels specifically stated that it exists 'people within the same jobs and field'.

It actually doesn't, and if you are going to downvote me because you dont agree with me, then show me the evidence for that. Link me to your data, please.

Hell, you dont even need the data, just spend a second to think about it. Jack and Jill both work the register at McDonalds. Jill makes 0.74c to every dollar Jack makes.

Jill compares her wage to Jacks, notices the discrepancy, and sues her employer for wage discrimination. Literally just the 4 years of payslips are all the evidence she needs.

Its harder to get away with murder. At least then they have to deal with reasonable doubt.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I've worked fast-food and a number of entry level jobs...women get the same pay as men...if companies could pay women .74 intead of a dollar that would probably mean they pay all women under the minimum wage...also why wouldn't McDonald's and other companies hire all women if they can have 26% savings on wages? They don't do that because it's some fake shit

[–]urammar 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, thank you.

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I've worked fast-food and a number of entry level jobs...women get the same pay as men

They're not complaining about those jobs. They're complaining about the comfortable, air-conditioned jobs where you sit at a desk with a large window overlooking the business district and sign checks between quaffs of brandy.

You know, the kinds of jobs that men work.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So the upper 1%?

[–]fengpi 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, those really are the only men that feminists seem to notice, though they also notice "creepy" scum once in a while when such bottom-dwellers fail to act with enough deference.

I think an argument could be made that feminism is basically a class war by upper-middle-class women which is being waged against everybody else.

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Google literally any wage study that includes gender. There is a 3-6% gap after adjusting for career, years of experience, hours worked, etc. The primary reason is because of negotiations. Men are typically more comfortable negotiating and get higher wages due to that. It is not discrimination, but it exists. If you want to be taken seriously you have to know what you're talking about.

[–]urammar 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Really? Thats interesting because I recall asking for a link to the study, not a link to google.

Because the data i've seen, such as the Office for National Statistics' study, indicates that in job to job comparisons, women earn on average 1,000 more than their male counterparts, for the same job.

Just image in you could pay a set of employees 4% less, for the same job? Why the fuck would you hire men? You just have to look at the market to see its bullshit. The fact that you are still taken in by this absolute propaganda in 2017 is stunning.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]urammar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You ask for a salary, and negotiate... with the bank?

Do YOU not understand how getting a job works?

And if you are implying that women, on average, are low-balling themselves in negotiations, then how do you conceive a discriminatory wage gap exists? These are normal market forces.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not a literal bank. Company figurative bank. And we have said it's not discriminatory, just that it exists.

[–]MrPlaysWithSquirrels 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was on my phone, but here are some links for you:

CONSAD - Comprehensive look.

AAUW - Commonly cited by proponents of the wage gap discussion. I like this link because it breaks down their exaggerated percentage well and proves them (mostly) wrong.

You can just go to the Wikipedia article for the gender gap and find your own studies. I think you need to bolster your reading comprehension. I didn't say the gap was due to discrimination, even though you keep saying I did. I said it exists. I also said it is minor. I further clarified later it's due to negotiating power. All of this is true - at no point did I say or hint that it was from discrimination.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Two QBs in the NFL. You think I'm making a different argument than I actually am.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]urammar 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What? Thats not a pay gap. What the hell is wrong with you people?

A 'wage gap' is not when 2 people are paid proportionally to their skills and experience. Its when those two things align perfectly, and one person is still pail less than the other.

Of course you get paid different rates for different experience. Why would that NOT be a thing? The gender pay gap is if there was an employee at your company of the opposite gender that had your exact qualifications, experience and time with the company, and was being paid more or less than you.

Is that a thing at your company? Does that happen there? Are women with the exact same qualifications, or better, being paid less than the men?

I'm asking you the question. Is there, in your company, a discriminatory pay policy in effect?

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jellymuncher 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You two are CLEARLY talking past each other. u/urammar is obviously thinking about WAGE jobs, for example the McDonalds cashier. Yes he/she would be paid minimum wage or whatever regardless of gender or what have you. u/SpurmKing, on the other hand, is talking about SALARY jobs which, unlike WAGE jobs usually don’t list what they’re going to pay you in the job offer. In SALARY jobs, the applicant is able to negotiate for higher pay, and studies show that men are often more willing to push for a much higher pay than women are, on average. This leads to a man and a woman doing the exact same job with the exact same experience, but the man getting paid higher. Out of context this can look like discrimination, which is probably where the whole “PAY GAP” fiasco started. Within the context, the woman most likely took what she was offered, perhaps asking for a little more, whilst the man asked for a lot more. If you tried that at McDonalds you would get laughed at, then probably asked to leave.

EDIT: typos

[–]urammar 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, we aren't talking past eachother. People simply are just not actually reading what im typing.

I gave an example of how easy it would be to prove that gender pay discrimination at a company exists, using two hypothetical Mcdonalds employees as an example. Perhaps that was a bad example, since it clearly conjures up the image that they are both working minimum wage.

The actual wage, salary or company is irrelevant for the example. If there is a discrepancy based on gender, it is very illegal, and very simple to prove. That was the point.

As far as your, and everyone elses, assertion that men are paid more for the same work, I:

A: Completely disagree. I have asked for the evidence for this assertion, and been provided with downvotes, further assertions, or told to 'google it', all the while providing evidence that in fact, the average woman earns 1 thousand more than her male counterpart, if circumstances are identical.

B: If any such discrepancy does exist, that it is not caused by discriminatory practices(The 'wage gap'), but is a natural result of the same market forces that apply to everyone, equally.

This is in contrast to /u/MrPlaysWithSquirrels initial statement that I have been responding to this entire time, in which he stated that it does exist, and effects two individuals differently, even with exactly comparable circumstances.

Downvotes don't change minds. They just show you fear what your opponent has to say.

And i'm sure there are a great many people looking in, noticing that in fact nobody has provided any convincing counter-point, cited no study that would disagree with my conclusions, or addressed any core arguments, and has just employed rhetoric and attempted to suppress dissent via the liberal application of downvotes.

Its all very interesting, if you ask me.

[+]Beltox2pointO -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Not an issue if society continues to value families.

If it heads down a collective individualist approach it could be very difficult for many people on the wrong side of the gap, even if it is caused by their own choices.

[–]topsecreteltee 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Society values families, businesses don't. Unfortunately businesses pay wages and society charges you taxes.

[–]Beltox2pointO 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That doesn't change what I said..

If society changes it's values then it would be a problem for those people.

It's not like business would change to pay less qualified / efficient people more money.

[–]chuck258 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Society only changed from familial values because of fucking feminists

Feminists can't spend 4 decades tearing down the family unit because of muh "cis white Christian heteropatriarchy" and then be surprised when it largely works. If society doesn't value the family, or doesn't value the family as much as it used to, the majority of the blame lies on Feminazis who pushed for its destruction (or fundamental alteration) in the first place.

Feminazis are greedy cunts. They simultaneously want the economic potential of a single man and the societal and cultural privilege given to stay at home mothers. That's not how it works. You don't get to demand the financial compensation of a single man while only doing 3/4ths the work he does and you don't get to demand all the attention and support that full time mothers get when you stick your kid in daycare all day while you pursue your career. And yet Feminazis demand both.

The feminist movement is the same in all but name of an organized crime racket. Mafia like, even.

[–]_Mellex_ -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Businesses don't value families? What the fuck lolol

Who hell consumes products? Families.

Costco, Amazon, Wal-Mart, you name it, are making big bucks because families of 5 need school supplies, holiday decorations, furniture, family packs of chicken breasts...I could go on. The housing market hinges on the expectation that people planning families upgrade.

Businesses don't value families

THAT'S WHY MARKETING COMPANIES PAY BILLIONS TO TARGET FAMILIES

Makes sense 😂😂😂

Stupidest shit I've read on Reddit in awhile.

[–]topsecreteltee 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have some serious flat earth logic going on here. I can't tell if you're really this dumb or if you're just trolling.

[–]lesbefriendly 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Businesses don't care about families, they care about being profitable. The only value a family (or individual) has to a business is how much money can be made from them.

Society values family as it ceases to exist without it.

[–]mellofello808 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't have kids problem solved. Women vastly outnumber men in colleges, if the majority of them prioritized their careers over family then they pay gap would shift the other way quickly.

[–]_Mellex_ 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And all these women making huge dollars are going to spend their money on what, exactly? No need to upgrade to a bigger home; no need for a second or third vehicle; no need for daycare and schools will surely close. The healthcare bubble bursts. Something tells me that such a huge shift would affect wages too. There's no guarantee that it works out for the better. You can't just play around with hypotheticals and keep everything the same except one variable. The real world is more complicated.

[+]Chub34 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very true better to keep our women as breeding factories that way they'll be able to afford a bigger home with the high paying job they sacrificed to have a child... oh wait

[+]Chub34 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very true better to keep our women as breeding factories that way they'll be able to afford a bigger home with the high paying job they sacrificed to have a child... oh wait

[–]ralphswanson 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men and women differ in many ways. Whenever men excel, such as earning more, we blame discrimination. Any other explanation would be misogyny. Whenever women excel, such as winning child custody, living longer, avoid workplace accidents, not being homeless, or staying out of prison we conclude female superiority.

So women are now suing Google because most of the better software engineers are men, even though Google has affirmative action for women. Thus, Google hires lesser performing women because they are women and then they are advanced slower than the men hired on merit. Then these women sue. That makes no sense. Men ought to sue Google for having affirmative action against men in the first place. But in our gyrocentric society, that would be laughed out of court.

[–]cxj 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

HOLY SHIT pigs do fly 😱

What's next: waking up next to a guy remembering nothing is not inherently rape?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe common sense is making a return? We can dream right?

[–]Septicrogue 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminist: It's our choice but let's blame men anyway.

[–]Brusanan 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

From the AAUW article:

Don’t men work longer hours than women? Most published pay gap estimates compare full-time workers with other full-time workers. But yes, women are more likely than men to work part time, and among full-time workers, men work longer hours on average than do women. However, on average women do more housework and care work than men. Men’s longer work hours are subsidized and facilitated by unpaid labor done by women, contributing to the gender pay gap.

Women should be paid more by their employers because they may or may not be working for free for someone else on the side.

Just ignore the fact that the someone else is her husband, who most likely IS giving her money from his pay check.

[–]Surtysurt 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But that's cause she makes less to begin with /s

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]StonetheThrone 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There was a woman that started her own company and only hired women. It ran into the ground because there were constant fights and lack of productivity. Crazy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I work for a place that has multiple locations. Same exact rules, product, etc. The only difference is that one location in run by a combination of genders, another is run pretty much only by women. First location is stupidly profitable and efficient. Second location is terrible and constantly fighting to stay afloat. I firmly believe that both genders are required to make a business extremely profitable.

[–]CatManDontDo -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but then the evil men wouldn't shop there or use their business because they know it is run by womynz.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, according to the Korn Ferry Hay group, who did the first large scale study that drilled down to the level where they compared people working for the same company and with the same job title, that 7% is actually an average of 1.6% across the 30+ nations and 8M+ people they studied.

Government studies (or private studies that use government job statistics) all have a larger unexplained residual because they only drill down to federal job classifications, or industry, rather than to the actual employer. We all know that employers in the same field don't all pay the same, so the only accurate measure means drilling down to the company, at the very least.

Korn Ferry Hay Group Wage Gap Study..

[–]Juan_Golt 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists tend to lie about conclusions not statistics. They do this so they can always retreat to the "look it up it's a true stat" even if it has nothing to do with what they claim it means.

[–]CopyX 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Feminists have said this often. They want to discuss why women chose different fields, how their timing and life choices affect where they end up in education and employment. The ability to choose how and when a woman gets pregnant is of super importance to feminists, allowing women to achieve higher education and higher share of the wages. But this is an issue that's ignored by the easy straw man that the pay gap doesn't exist. It's multifactoral, but we can't get over bashing feminists to have that discussion.

[–]gotenksTheThirst 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Some feminists have said this. Others used the wage gap to push their own ideology, saying outright falsehoods like women are paid less for the same work.

Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWzELjRfWA

Is that not worth bashing?

[–]Bunerd 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Well, it's just a speech. The policies he put forth where for more comprehensive maternity care, and protections for taking it. He also instituted some paternity care to motivate the market to treating post-birth time as a right to parents.

A 6 month leave every couple of years means you get passed over for promotions and for raises. It's a system that punishes women exclusively based on reproductive rights. It sucks to have to be an incubator for another person, and it takes a lot out of a person. Preparing for such a feat takes tremendous energy on its own.

Because of their choices. Both men and women are offered the same choice to reproduce, but, it's undeniable that women take the entire burden of initiating parenthood and are punished for it further by our economic environment.

I'm an outsider to the system. I've walked in both sets of shoes and have lost my ability to reproduce, so I'm kinda as neutral as a figure as you can get. I listen to both side's grievances and agree with the cis women when they say that they get the shit end of the stick with pregnancy in our current economic system.

Perhaps it is not worth bashing, but worth introspection. Worth research, worth taking a step back from your role in the dichotomy and look at the facts and how people need to deal with different issues in different ways.

[–]gotenksTheThirst 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

What is this, you spent 5 paragraphs arguing against a position i never took.

Take a minute. Maybe I'm all for maternity leave, but I still don't like when a politician uses lies and myths to push their policies. You'll never know unless you ask.

[–]Bunerd 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Right, I spent one paragraph arguing against the point you made, one to argue what the original point was, one paragraph to explain how I understand the issue to both parties, one paragraph to assert my neutrality in this position, and one paragraph urging you to be more neutral as well.

I kinda hoped to anticipate any argument so I'd at least be treated in good faith, but it is literally impossible to avoid arguing with idiots, they don't understand the rules of good faith.

[–]gotenksTheThirst 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You're urging me to be more neutral when you don't even know my position. That is the opposite of arguing in good faith. You assumed my position without even asking me.

[–]Bunerd 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I was replying to something you said, right?

I try to assume the best of people. I hope your point wasn't "Black President Says Something, so obviously the opposite is true." That's kinda, batshit insane. So, I had assumed your position was more in line with the "men work harder and deserve more" argument, since that's the best angle to approach this with that would fit in the ambiguity of your phrasing.

Now, are you going to stop being offended and start acting like an adult?

[–]gotenksTheThirst 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The best angle to approach a convo, when you don't know the other person's position, and are trying to assume the best of people, is to ask them.

I would honestly like an apology for your making assumptions about me, especially implying that I think Obama was wrong because of his race. That's a really nasty assumption, especially to a minority like me.

[–]Bunerd 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that was my point. It would be a poor assumption about you.

Since you were unclear about your point, and my assumption seems to be off, would you mind providing the feedback I need for self-correction?

[–]gotenksTheThirst 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No thanks.

[–]Truly_Scrumptious_-1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

As a man, if we had to birth children, humanity would die out. Woman are filled with chemicals to stop that from happening. Saying that, I would love to be at home looking after my kid rather than working.

The biology of having children is not a choice.

[–]Bunerd 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

We're basically at the point where most tasks can be easily automated, and there are still plenty of people who'd like to do work. We should probably move to a communist society soon so we can make it so you can do just that.

[–]Truly_Scrumptious_1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Lol. That's a bit /r/restofthefuckingowl

Child birth shouldn't be automated. Naturally birthed kids out perform test tube babies in every test. But the role of a mother and father are different and should be treated as such.

Some jobs will be automated. Being a human won't be, raising kids shouldn't be.

We're discussing the article though. Not communism.

[–]sneakpeekbot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a sneak peek of /r/restofthefuckingowl using the top posts of all time!

#1: Rest of the fucking baby | 228 comments
#2: Photoshop tutorials be like | 149 comments
#3: Carving a tree into a bear | 69 comments


I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out

[–]Bunerd 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, I mean all other forms of labor. We have robots and algorithms now, why do we feel the need to idle at work all day? You could be at home taking care of the kids, we will work to automate your troubles away because we want to automate our troubles away, and hey, isn't it better if we share that with you?

[–]Truly_Scrumptious_1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Well I'm in the process of buying a farm. So my version of being at home is getting everyone outside and participating together. While farming can be automated, I believe I can create a better product manually.

Aside from the quality of (some) products, I fully believe that automation will devalue the human experience significantly. What happens when most people can't do anything better than a machine. What do they do? The uncreative, the 50% of people with a below average iq? Those people who do all the meaningless repetitive soul crushing jobs that they are so used to?

They became Luddites once upon a time, but that time there were new jobs being created. Now they will disappear for ever.

Of course the crux of this issue is that we've transferred all wealth to the very few people who own the robots. Expecting them to support everybody else. Why would they do that? There's no recorded situation where that's happened. An unruly populace is presented with war. Somewhere to go and die.

[–]Bunerd 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You have the option to refine yourself in any hobby. The human neural network is designed to refine its abilities. You are always allowed to refine your skills and develop them, the only stipulation is if you have waste or excess, you distribute it to others freely.

But, this means we need to end capital and private property. This is not to say you can't own things, have personal possessions, but like, you can't arbitrarily rope off hundreds of acres or entire means of producing or fixing things. Like, if you aren't currently using it, share.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Motte and Bailey tactics

They admit that discrimination doesn't cause the gap when challenged, but then go and make statements/policies as if discrimination was what is causing the gap.

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wish I could upvote twice.

[–]BloodFartTheQueefer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's also ironic because it's a good explanation from rationalwiki.

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists have said this often.

Before quickly passing by it and focusing on the remaining tiny percent of "undetermined cause" to yell about how it's due to misogyny. When somebody knowingly ignores 93% of an issue in order to use the remaining bit to push an agenda, it just seems a bit disingenuous.

[–]Bunerd 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It would be a wise idea to disprove what feminist are actually talking about by reading their writing rather than reacting a superficial view of a meme based on an interpretation of the concept that women were talking about in the first place.

"Look, planes prove Newton's gravity wrong."

"That's not how that works..."

"Nonsense, gravity makes things go down, planes go up!"

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

But this is an issue that's ignored by the easy straw man that the pay gap doesn't exist.

Yeah, but who honestly says that? When some angry MRA says, "The pay gap doesn't exist!", we all know what he really means, which is that while there is a measurable gap between average female full time pay and average male full time pay, none of it is due to discrimination.

What's getting left out of that MRA's sentence is this:

"The pay gap, as it is dishonestly portrayed in the media, by feminist organizations and by government, doesn't exist."

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't blame MRAs for making a simplified response to an even more simplified claim. The fault lies with those who say "women get paid 23% less for the same work".

That pay gap, as it is portrayed does indeed not exist.

[–]BloodFartTheQueefer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's the same as when atheists say "god doesn't exist". When pressed for a more honest/less glib response they usually will resort to some variation of "what I actually mean is that I don't believe in your god"

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not quite. It's more like religious people saying "god is there on that cloud" and the atheists responding with "there's no god there".

The dishonesty lies with those making the initial claim. It would be improper to demand nuance from those debunking it when none is needed.

[–]BloodFartTheQueefer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well sure, atheists usually are responding to some religious claim when they merely say "god doesn't exist" but this isn't always the case. I also understand because I used to do so myself. Now I try not to accept an extra burden on myself when I can just reject the initial claim without making my own claim.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough.

[–]Razvedka 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

7-8% pay gap due to gender descrimination? I suppose them admitting to a lower figure is a win, but even this seems too high to me. Not saying it isn't true, I'm just surprised and skeptical.

[–]BernieMakesSaudisPay 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

[–]Hazzman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should probably read the original article:

http://www.aauw.org/article/faq-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

[–]MJVerostek 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't matter.

They'll claim those choices are caused by "The Patriarchy" and "internalized misogyny" rather than a lack of foresight and personal responsibility.

[–]QueenCuntie 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course women's choices are a cause, is anyone actually trying to argue that women aren't choosing their career paths?

[–]BlackBoxInquiry 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

whaaaaat?

So it's what has been said by those with common sense for how long??!??

LOL

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

About fucking time.

[–]kielly32 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I fought for an hour with some feminazi teenager on Periscope one day about pay gap and "most men" being perverted creeps. One minute she was acting foolish playing guitar, next minute she was in a full on "fuck men" rant.

It's honestly tragically sad how much radical feminism influences the young. I really don't want to be around in another couple centuries to see the world.

[–]BFCE 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Although you'll get way more scholarships for a field like computer science just for being a woman.

[–]ifelsedowhile 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If women want to focus on career instead of family, why don't they marry a stay at home husband? when I was jobless I was more than willing to be one, but no woman would consider me as a viable option because they expect men to contribute financially one way or another.

[–]EvrythingISayIsRight 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha, you and me both, brother. Where are those feminist wine who will support us? I can cook, clean and do laundry too, but nobody seems interested.

[–]g_squidman4 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

Let me help you all out here.

Yeah, this isn't news. This is old. The question is whether society pressures women to make choices that put them in lower income positions. "Personal choice" is not a thing here. There's no, "then they can choose to make a different choice!" option here. When we talk about general trends and large groups, circumstances always rule over individual decisions, period.

This is what feminism has always been about. They battle the wage gap at the root, with the early childhood STEM programs.

But you want to talk about men's rights, correct? Let's talk about men's rights then.

The assertion feminism makes is that societal pressure restricts women's decisions to choose higher paying careers. But what if there's an opposite effect?

Obviously, societal pressure pushes men to take higher paying careers too. It's something we've always talked about. Men take the dangerous and disgusting jobs as well. We're the ones taking out the trash and putting our life on the line. Maybe we're also making personal sacrifices in favor of positions of status? If society is causing men to earn more, what are we losing instead? Our social lives? Our love lives? Our family lives?

We're always talking about middle age suicide rates. That could be a byproduct of men always making the decision that leads to a fulfilling career, at the sacrifice for other things.

And let's think about this. People will make the decision that ultimately help them the most, unless there is pressure from society to choose otherwise. So is society pushing women more than men? Women have had decades of feminism helping them break society's gender roles. Men haven't.

[So this is what happens] (https://i.redd.it/huldca470hnz.jpg)

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The question is whether society pressures women to make choices that put them in lower income positions.

On the contrary, if anything there's an explicit push to get more women in higher positions. Women are not more present in high positions in spite of, not because of society.

This is what feminism has always been about. They battle the wage gap at the root, with the early childhood STEM programs.

The root is female selection pressure. The only way to "battle" this is to somehow get women to marry down and across rather than up and across the dominance hierarchy. Good luck with that.

The assertion feminism makes is that societal pressure restricts women's decisions to choose higher paying careers.

Again, no. Women are collectively pressuring men to invest more into status. "Society" doesn't pressure women into apathy.

If society is causing men to earn more, what are we losing instead? Our social lives? Our love lives? Our family lives?

That paragraph has only one flaw: You think it's "society" that's doing this to men/women. It isn't. There's no conspiracy, no patriarchy. It's just the collective manifestation of everybody's personal choices. It'll change fast enough if women ever change their preferences. Until they do, no amount of activism will do anything good. It will do a lot of harm though as it has already.

People will make the decision that ultimately help them the most

They're already doing that. Or do you think women should go for more sensitive, less aggressive men? Perhaps that would be better for everyone? Well why don't you go and ask feminists to demand that from women and stop blaming men for women's choices?

[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

This is the number one issue in all of mens rights that I have identified. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are not just a woman hater and are competent.

I intentionally started off trying to explain that "personal choice" has no place in this discussion. There is no such thing. When we talk generally on a broad scale, people will always act and react, make decisions, based on their circumstances. The circumstances we have are social pressure. Society causes predictable outcomes. I don't think this is disputable, as there are very clear trends with how society views breaking gender roles and how people of each gender seem to follow that.

We are raised from an early age to view men as the breadwinner. My dad worked his office job, so I will work mine as his father before him did. This is a societal trend, and probably the biggest contributor to the wage gap.

In fact, when you say things like "women's collective personal choices" and talk about women's tendency to marry into status, what is this other than societal pressure? You've only changed the language to target women specifically.

You claimed that society is pushing women into STEM and women are making personal choices against it. Personal choice is not a thing though, and the STEM movement is pushing against society, targeting society, to help change the trends we see. And it's working. And indeed this is was my final point. Women have had feminism pushing for years to help society allow them to choose to break out of their gender roles. Men haven't, so we are probably the ones being forced by society to make choices that hurt us. Women are just choosing the balance between work and family while men are driven to the extreme.

If you still don't believe that society is the problem, note that targeting society is the only way feminism ever succeeds. When they use words like "patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity," it changes the conversation and puts blame on men. That's why we need men's rights, because feminism isn't helping us. Targeting society is how you open up the conversation and make it non-adversarial. Otherwise, you just sound like a woman-hater, and nobody will listen.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Stopped reading after "woman hater". If you can't make your case without cheap sexist shaming tricks, I'll make the more time-efficient assumption that you don't have a case. Perhaps I'm wrong so you're welcome to try again if you think you can make an argument without the gender equivalent of a witchcraft argument.

[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I kept reading after you called me a man-hater. You won't give me the same courtesy? Especially since I specifically said "I'll assume you aren't just a woman-hater." And even more so, since my point is why need to avoid this BS.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

you called me a man-hater.

Where and when did I call you a man-hater?

I specifically said "I'll assume you aren't just a woman-hater."

Oh please. A blatant apophasis is one thing, but when you're caught, it's over. Have the integrity to admit it. Trying to continue the charade anyway is just pathetic.

Instead of proving me wrong, you weakened your position even more by adding a blatant lie to the mix and zero attempt to make a case. So give me one reason why I should bother interacting with you any further.

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Apophasis

Apophasis (Greek ἀπόφασις from ἀπόφημι apophemi, "to say no") is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony.

The device is also called paralipsis (παράλειψις) – also spelled paraleipsis or paralepsis – or occupatio, and known also as praeteritio, preterition, or parasiopesis (παρασιώπησις).


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27

[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by

Well why don't you go and ask feminists to demand that from women and stop blaming men for women's choices?

But that reads to me like an accusation. If that's not, then I may have overreacted, but the fact is that we have a lot of women-haters here.

Now how can you say I undermined my point when you don't know what my point is? I made my case, and you didn't read it. Let's try an experiment. You don't have to read my post. Instead, tell back to me what you think my point is right now. Try to see my perspective.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

the fact is that we have a lot of women-haters here.

Aha. Let's see some evidence. This claim is very common and whenever I challenge it, the result is always the same: no evidence and/or excuses for why none is provided. Please make history and surprise me.

Now how can you say I undermined my point when you don't know what my point is?

I didn't. Try to read more carefully.

tell back to me what you think my point is right now.

Fair enough. Since I told you to jump through a hoop, you can ask the same of me:

Your point is based on the misconception that I dismissed your argument(s) based on your thinly veiled attempt at character assassination. If that had been what I did, you'd be right. But I didn't do that. What I did was question the point in discussing anything with you at all. From that point, that's all this was about to me - partially because I should be doing other things.

Speaking of which...

[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you not agree that we have a lot of women-haters here? I'm sorry, I assumed most people generally agreed with that statement. All of our allies point to this sub as an example of the movement being taken over by deliberately toxic people, or being a stepping stone into those harsher communities. Most people, good people, toss us in with /r/incels, /r/conspiracytheories, /r/MGTOW, and other openly hateful communities. I can't think of a way to prove this that wouldn't simply be anecdotal though. If you have some ideas on that, I'll listen, but it was my mistake to assume you agreed with this.

So for the third time, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I made some assumptions about you. I assumed you were trying to call me out as a man-hater, and that's why I responded with the character assassinating comment in return. I argue a lot in this subreddit, and in my experience, it's a common issue. It's an issue that I specifically addressed in my comment that you refused to read where I explained how the wage gap is a men's issue.

If you truly don't want to debate the effects of society on male status, then I guess this conversation is over.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you not agree that we have a lot of women-haters here?

I don't think there are a lot of women-haters anywhere. The closest to actual women-hating is places like incels but that is more anger than hatred. Man-hatred on the other hand is more common. That's why people don't notice it. You don't notice "built-in" features so to speak.

All of our allies point to this sub as an example of the movement being taken over by deliberately toxic people

What allies? People who point this out are usually feminists or those who are so biased that they interpret anything an woman might not feel good hearing as misogyny.

I can't think of a way to prove this that wouldn't simply be anecdotal though.

Well some examples would be a start. Even that would be new. Then see how they're received and how many of them there are. Keep in mind we frequently get feminists trolling us to make this place look bad. Not censoring everything comes at a price you see.

I realize it's not easy to prove but if there really is widespread hatred of women, it should at least be easy to demonstrate multiple unchallenged instances of it.

If you truly don't want to debate the effects of society on male status

Sigh. ...

When we talk generally on a broad scale, people will always act and react, make decisions, based on their circumstances.

Yes....

The circumstances we have are social pressure.

No. Social pressure is likely one of the smaller aspects influencing decision making. Societal/cultural norms tend to follow and/or reinforce already existing traits.

Society causes predictable outcomes. I don't think this is disputable

Seriously?

as there are very clear trends with how society views breaking gender roles and how people of each gender seem to follow that.

Most people don't even understand gender roles, where they come from or what their purpose is. You, for example, seem to think society just made them up for no reason and imposes them on everybody. It's like when kids were asked why there are rivers and they said "so boats can float on them". I'm not even exaggerating. The level of understanding is abysmal. Sadly, you're no exception.

The reason I suspect is because of bias. As I once said before, because of male disposability, we don't see male disposability. Again, built-in features are hard to notice.

This is a societal trend, and probably the biggest contributor to the wage gap.

Are you even aware that "working" was not always what it is today? And that women weren't always able to perform said "work"? Do you understand the historical context of earning the bread let alone the physical/biological circumstances that made gender roles inevitable?

In fact, when you say things like "women's collective personal choices" and talk about women's tendency to marry into status, what is this other than societal pressure?

Nobody is pressuring women to marry up. There's an abundance of men at the bottom of society. Hint: we are the offspring of countless generations of men who were selected by their partners for their capacity to provide and protect since before civilization.

And it's working.

It's not. There are many ways to demonstrate this but one simple realization is all I need: The very women who do go for high-status careers are the most likely to marry up and not across or down. The further up in status women rise, the more traditional they become in mate selection. The feminist view that society is pressuring women to not go into high-status careers, has no answer to this. Or many other paradoxes.

If you still don't believe that society is the problem

The problem is misinformation. This is indeed a problem with society which we can and must address. After that, well frankly our job is pretty much done. If people consciously want to favor women then there's very little anyone can do about it. But we can at least try to make it be conscious. Right now we have people believing they're favoring men while doing the exact opposite. That we can change.

note that targeting society is the only way feminism ever succeeds.

Feminism is more reactionary than revolutionary. One criticism of this sub that I think is valid is that it tends to overrate feminism as the cause of problems for men.

Otherwise, you just sound like a woman-hater

You must be relatively new to men's rights. Here's a flash: we will sound like this to them anyway.

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

women's tendency to marry into status, what is this other than societal pressure?

to some extant human female hypergamy is likely governed by more than just societal pressure - this is a strategy that has improved the outcome for offspring for as long as the species has been alive. And arguably, as advanced by philosophy professor Jordan Peterson, has potentially been the guiding factor in why we have become the dominant species on the planet. He also argues that dominance hierarchies are an unavoidable product of existence.

If those thoughts have any realistic basis, arguments of societal influence being the thing to change are going to continue on the path of greater and greater incentives for women and lesser and lesser incentives for men, both of which will be unearned and be insufficient to resolve anything.

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So this is what happens

They missed the last few panels where his wife divorces him for not having a job because all her friends talk about it behind her back and shes upset and jealous that he gets to 'sit at home' while she goes out and works.

[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The lesson is obviously balance. The story of the bum is as common as the story of the workaholic. This is the problem though. Society needs to change, because every time you and the wife's friends point out this thing every man is painfully aware of already, they perpetuate the issue. They drive more men to the other side.

[–]zfighter18 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are considered disposable by society, imo. We're the workhorses. We need to do those things because women aren't going to. Is it messed up? Sure. But then again, feminism helped women check out of a lot of gender roles but the same isn't considered justified for men. Why? Because "why would we need that? After all, we're men. Everything's easier for men."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminist group admits 'pay gap' is caused by women's choices

No they didn't. They just chose a smaller percentage for some reason.

[–]joshafool 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

One feminist group down. Millions left to go. Someone tell the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudumb about this.

[–]chambertlo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Has hell frozen over and no one told me?

[+]aramn76 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

female thinking "I'm being payed clearly because my choice and my selfish thinking."

Female saying "I'm being discriminated on my pay because of my gender."

[–]dem_c 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What pay gap?

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-chart

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the original Dept. of Labor commissioned report from CONSAD back in 2009, the report that kicked off all this "wage gap" noise.

And was deleted off of the Department of Labor website after the Obama administration came in.

Because when you run for president (in part) promising to fight a wage gap, it really doesn't help your cause to have a report on a federal department's website which undermines the basis of your promises.

[–]-redditardation- 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, time to dictate exactly what women must do. For 'the greater good' of course.

[TRADITIONALISM INTENSIFIES]

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's caused by men's LACK of a choice.

[+]GuffinMuffin -13 points-12 points-11 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How is this related to men's rights?

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points51 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The gender pay gap is a common justification for "positive" discrimination against men in high paying business or STEM roles. It is also used as justification for the numerous well-funded programs to aid women - and only women - with their careers, among other things, giving them an unfair advantage against men.

Edit: want to add, those are just the direct effects. The wage gap is just one lie within a whole system of propaganda. We are told that women are paid less for the same job, that women are discouraged from a young age, that women face hostile workplaces. At some point, people who hear and believe enough of this propaganda might just start giving promotions to women, or offering them higher salaries, just because of all of the "difficulties" they have faced, what with their women-only scholarships, careers events, their higher likelihood of being accepted for a job or PhD in STEM fields (which we obviously need more of, you know, because women are still paid less even with these things because of patriarchy!).

[–]MrBagnall 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because the wage gap myth has been used to oppose mensrights for a while now and as it becomes more openly accepted as bullshit we can make more progress . . . Not sure why that needed ro be explained tbh.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The attempts to police discussion in every thread on this subreddit are crazy. Just fuck off already.

[–]chicklepip 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, the people in here just correctly assume that you should be against anti-intellectual feminist lies.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope it’s caused by the fact that women have maternity leave and men dont

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why does it take a feminist group saying what we already know for people to believe it? I would argue there is no 'pay gap' or even a negative pay gap when accounting for on the job deaths and potential future earnings.

[–]explodingwombat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean I think we really can't do more for women than we have, look at the STEM degrees. There's so much encouragement there for women, and yet there's still so little, they just don't want to do it. Just like there's a shortage of men in cosmetology. Making a degree easier and easier to obtain doesn't change a thing if the person just flat out isn't interested in it in the first place. Men are the workhorses of society, we picked practical things, women were the ones to play around with emotion and socializing (which isn't a bad thing in today's society)since the beginning of time since they had the fundamental biological advantage/necessity that allowed them to do so.

[+]-nnn- -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

r/MensRights admits the 'pay gap' exists

[+][deleted] -18 points-17 points-16 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't new, feminists have said that for a while.

[+][deleted] -20 points-19 points-18 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

They've literally always "admitted" this. If y'all are gonna insist on being losers who base their lives around hating feminism, at least have the fuckin' guts to actually do research into the opposing ideas.

[–]21stdeadcats14 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

"do research" do you know how i know you're not from here?

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because I'm shit talking you idiots?

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And they have literally always explained that it was because of societal pressure and the choices women make.

Like I said, call it stupid all you want. But if you don't even bother to find out what people actually mean, y'all are dumber than anyone else.

[–]kielly32 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If y'all are gonna insist on being losers who base their lives around hating feminism

I don't hate feminism. Feminism is about equality which I support. I hate bullshit "facts" thrown at us men to make us look bad in the eyes of the future.

[+]totalynotaNorwagian[🍰] -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This isn't new. Feminist have always said this.

[–]gotenksTheThirst 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not all feminists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWzELjRfWA

[+]totalynotaNorwagian[🍰] -12 points-11 points-10 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He only mentions the fact that woman will make less out of college. Never say that it isn't because the different choices men and women make.

[–]ZeroXShadow 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He only mentions the fact that woman will make less out of college

And get paid less for the same job. And calling it unequal even thought they have equal opportunities is disingenuous.

[+]totalynotaNorwagian[🍰] -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He never says that. He never even says the word jobs. He mentions "for the same work" but that's obviously referring to the same level of schooling and not the same job.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Can I ask you guys a question?

Why is the fact that people repeat the 'pay gap myth' a problem?

If it's a myth, and men and women are already paid generally the same amount for the same work -- and the reason for the pay gap is because men and women choose different lines of work -- then a law or policy requiring men and women to receive the same pay for the same work would be a harmless tchotcke that would have no real-world effect on anything.

And if it's not a myth in some cases, and such policies result in men and women being paid the same amount for the same work, isn't that a good thing? Isn't equality and fairness the goal of men's rights activists, as it should be of any gender based activism?

Thanks

[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

are you asking what the big deal is of spreading a myth? I just want to get this right. you really see no harm in spreading a myth? and lets get one thing straight. its not a myth, no there really is a gap. its an earnings gap though, not a wage gap.

But again, you see no problem in perpetuating a discriminatory conclusion where there is none?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, I see no harm in it at all. Because, as I said, if they pass laws or make policies requiring women to be paid the same as men, it effects nothing if the wage gap is a myth.

You think this myth is the basis for some kind of real world discrimination against men?

Explain?

[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because that myth is already being used to discriminate against men (e.g. "This high-paying job can only go to a woman, because gender pay gap reasons") and even to simply hand over more money to women for nothing, e.g. several companies and government agencies have announced they are giving cash handouts only to their female employees, because gender pay gap reasons.

It's also harmful to women and especially to young girls, who will be discouraged and disincentivized from making the personal choices and making the effort required to earn a high income, either because they believe the feminist bullshit and think they'll earn less just because they're female or because they think they won't have to and money will be dropped in their lap for no effort because vagina.

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so hold up. I'm not even talking examples and real world scenarios yet. I'm still talking over all ethics and such.

you still see no problem in teaching women that the only reason they are getting paid less is NOT because of what THEY choose and when they choose to do it (that is, an earnings gap, not wage), no, its because they are being discriminated against because they are women.

You are saying there is nothing wrong with filling the minds of millions of women with myths of discrimination? You see no negative side effects with this?

and also,

if they pass laws or make policies requiring women to be paid the same as men, it effects nothing if the wage gap is a myth.

it was passed in 1963, equal pay act, but that doesn't stop feminists from screaming discrimination at the top of their lungs. Women are being taught that they are helpless victims. if this isn't dangerous mentally, I don't know what is.

[–]Ithelda 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There already are laws and policies against paying men and women unequally, though....?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Then what's the problem?

Why is the pay gap 'myth' a men's rights issue?

[–]Ithelda 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone else might have a better answer, but I think things like this are posted because 1) the "wage gap" is one of the examples feminists give for why women are more oppressed than men and thus men's rights don't matter, and 2) some feminists think the way to fix the wage gap is for all jobs to be 50/50 male and female employees- but this can displace men who actually want a job and are skilled, and replace them with unenthusiastic women who are just there to fill a quota. At least that's what I assume the logic is. I do think some posts here are more about hating on feminism than they are about positive action for men's rights, but to be fair feminists have said and done a lot of shit to trash men and men's rights issues and I understand the desire to generally disprove myths propogated by feminism.

[+]Idkawesome -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

There are different situations that have different causes. In a movie, where a female actress is starring alongside a male role equally, yet she gets paid less, I can't see there being any other cause than simple discrimination.

Other times it's caused by circumstance. Women aren't as comfortable being knowledgeable in certain masculine industries. That leads to them being slightly more difficult to work with, so that makes sense that they'd get paid less in that circumstance.

But there are other examples of it just being simple discrimination I'm sure.

[–]mikesteane 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I can't see there being any other cause than simple discrimination

Loads of possible reasons here: negotiating skills (management), alternative opportunities, status of actor and value of name in the movie. Discrimination is an absurd idea: why would they pay the actor more than they have to?

But there are other examples of it just being simple discrimination I'm sure.

Why on earth would anyone pay a man more when they could get the same service cheaper from a woman. The whole idea is an absurdity.

[+]Idkawesome 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Just because it's absurd doesn't mean it's not happening.

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

But if something is absurd, you would have to be a fool to simply assume it happens. Find the examples and show the evidence or reconsider your certainty.

[+]Idkawesome 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Why even argue that a pay gap doesn't exist, when none of us know for certain whether it does or not?

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

None of us know for certain, although yesterday one of us said "I'm sure."

Edit: the onus is clearly on those who believe there is a discriminatory pay gap to prove the case before any policies should be based on it.

[+]Idkawesome 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

that's true. i did say that. but you really think there aren't men who pay women less?

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The onus is on you mate. Show evidence that there is a significant gap due purely to discrimination.

[+]Idkawesome -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

show evidence that there isn't.

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As I have already said, the onus is on you to show that there is. The fact that falsification is the norm for those pushing the pay gap story is evidence for the fact that it does not exist. As is the obvious logic that anyone who wants to make a profit employs the most cost-effective staff. The onus remains on you to show the existence of this unlikely and absurd alleged phenomenon.

[+]Idkawesome 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

By the way, you just specifically outlined the other part of what I said. skills, opportunities, value, etc - all reasons for a possible lower pay. I called it circumstance. But there have been clear situations where actors have found out that they were getting paid less than white male co-stars. And don't ask me to present any information to you, it's my point of view. If you think it's something that you would need evidence of, google it and find out for yourself. Otherwise you're just choosing to be less informed about something that you apparently feel passionate about.

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

actors

Hardly representative of income generally.

you apparently feel passionate about

No, I do not waste my limited reserves of energy by being passionate about things I have very little power to change.

[–]EricAllonde 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actors are paid based on the size of the audience they can attract to a movie, i.e. they are paid based on the level of demand for their services.

Studios have various formulas and financial models they use to estimate what actors are "worth" to a particular movie they are casting. That's very complex to work out, so even the best models can only be approximate. And you'll always be able to find examples where the models got it wildly wrong, in either direction. But the fact is that studios are in the business of making money and with these models they are doing the best they can. No studio is going to deliberately make a less-profitable choice of actor because of sexism.

Actors and their agents will sometimes disagree with those formulas, which they are perfectly entitled to. They're also free to put forward any evidence they have for why a particular actor is more valuable than their studio thinks they are. I don't see ability to negotiate as being a gender factor here, since both male & female actors are represented by agents, who may be either male or female.

The most likely explanation in my view: perhaps both male & female moviegoers are more influenced in their choice of movie to watch by the male actors starring than they are by the female actors. That makes the choice of male actors more financially important than the choice of female actors, a majority of the time. Hence higher pay for the top male actors than for the top female actors.

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stop using apex fallacies to back up your incorrect assertions.

Media, sports and entertainment are special cases where naturally occurring talent, charisma and likeability play a bigger role than just about anything else.

Also, stop white knighting for rich people. Why the fuck should anyone who isnt a Hollywood actress care even in the slightest that JLaw earned a million dollars less than RDJ? Youre shilling for people who dont care about you and just want more money, its funny just how pathetic that is.

[+]Fmrsomuch -15 points-14 points-13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This sub is fucking trash.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter