How every company in America can save 23% on wages

Akesgeroth · 2015-04-18T03:39:32+00:00

Maddox stomping ass as usual.

I'd also like to add that he brings up an actual gender issue: Why are women less inclined to negotiate? He brings up a valid hypothesis, which is that women might be brought to expect less from the fake statistics and so are satisfied with less. Also, from the article on his website:

The prevailing theory is that it's because women are conditioned to have lower expectations in the workplace. It's a shit theory because it doesn't account for the women who are ambitious, do strive for managerial positions and larger roles in government. There are plenty of powerful, successful and wealthy women who break this mold every day. Why? Rather than asking why women who succeed are successful, activist groups like the AAUW focuses on the negative and asks instead, why they are not.

Keiichi81 · 2015-04-18T15:38:42+00:00

I really hope I don't hear the "77%" figure trotted out again in the upcoming elections. It's been debunked again and again and again and again and again, so many times now by so many different organizations and studies that any politician continuing to spread it isn't simply misinformed but is willfully lying. Ditto for the "1 in 4 women will be raped" statistic.

KingAchelexus · 2015-04-18T01:22:01+00:00

Maddox is awesome.

BBQ_HaX0r · 2015-04-18T14:06:48+00:00

Wow, I didn't know he was still around. That's the same old Maddox I remember, spewing truth and stompin' balls.

Wargame4life · 2015-04-18T10:26:09+00:00

good god i need to go drinking with maddox

2015-04-18T12:36:35+00:00

This concept is repeated over and over, but Maddox is a master at conveying it.

Nulono · 2015-04-18T09:03:03+00:00

How does the Paycheck Fairness Act rely on the 77% statistic?

Lrellok · 2015-04-18T06:38:43+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/rszvZHe.gif

Sails strait past the point without stopping. Feminism is not cultural marxism, it is about cultural fuedalism. Oh they hate merit all right, but not becouse they want equality, becouse they want aristocracy. An elite upper class built on the hard work of everyone else, and rationalised with half truths and fact defying narratives. That is the goal of feminism.

60secs · 2015-04-18T07:54:19+00:00

Moss-Racusin wanted to figure out if faculty at academic institutions, despite their training in conducting scientifically objective research, held implicit gender biases that were disadvantaging women who were pursuing STEM careers.

In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John.

Despite the scientific valuation of objectivity, gender stereotypes tainted the judgments of the scientists, generating a bias that dampened the STEM career prospects of Jennifer. Even women scientists favored John. This finding supports the understanding among researchers that gender biases are not a result of in-group favoritism. Rather, gender bias is often an outcome of an implicit cognitive process in which pervasive gender stereotypes shape our judgments, regardless of our intentions. Moss-Racusin stressed that the participants in her study were likely unaware they were discriminating against Jennifer.

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

In four studies, Bowles and collaborators from Carnegie Mellon found that people penalized women who initiated negotiations for higher compensation more than they did men. The effect held whether they saw the negotiation on video or read about it on paper, whether they viewed it from a disinterested third-party perspective or imagined themselves as senior managers in a corporation evaluating an internal candidate. Even women penalized the women who initiated the conversation, though they also penalized the men who did so. They just didn’t seem to like seeing someone ask for more money.

In a follow-up study, Bowles asked participants whether they themselves would negotiate in the given scenario—that is, they were now the job candidate and not the evaluating manager. The women, for the most part, said no. They were nervous that the conversation would turn against them. “Women are more reticent to negotiate than men, for good reason,” Bowles says.

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/lean-out-the-dangers-for-women-who-negotiate

Frobenioid · 2015-04-18T12:09:31+00:00

Women value jobs that help society significantly more than men.

Citation needed.

ThereOnceWasAMan · 2015-04-18T16:13:49+00:00

The 77% figure is probably bullshit, but Maddox commits a couple of giant fallacies here. If women are only getting paid 77%, it's because their perceived worth is 77% that of men. So, a company could save 23% on labor by hiring only women, but they would (in this hypothetical scenario) be only perceiving themselves as getting 77% of the productivity that they otherwise would. So, it evens out. I'm not saying that the 77% right. I'm only saying that this line of reasoning doesn't disprove it in of itself.

Another fallacy is the idea that correcting for job title, which eliminates most of the wage gap, somehow solves the problem. Why are women holding lower-paying jobs? Is it because those are the jobs they want, or are there other factors working against them? Maddox provides one explanation -- that women are less likely to ask for raises and promotions -- but I'm far from convinced that is the explanation, especially since it's barely sufficient to explain the 7% gap and isn't sufficient to explain why another 16% of women are holding lower-paying jobs in the first place.

Title	How every company in America can save 23% on wages
Author	McGonzaless
Upvotes	545
Comments	52
Date	April 18, 2015 12:43 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/32zfz9/how_every_company_in_america_can_save_23_on_wages/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-every-company-in-america-can-save-23-on-wages.982741 https://theredarchive.com/post/982741

Comments