The study I cited, like all others, does not say that the gap is “entirely” due to women’s choices. All show an unexplained gap that may be due to discrimination. It’s just that the gap is far smaller than the 30% that is thrown around, when you account for differences like, you know, the job they’re in. You wouldn’t say it’s unfair that a woman working at Walmart makes less than a male lawyer, would you?
So don’t misrepresent what I said.
As for being offered smaller salaries, IF all things are equal (same job, same experience and education, etc.) then that would be an example of sex discrimination. But it’s more complicated than that. Some studies show that women don’t ASK for as high a salary when they open the negotiation, and that they are less confident about pushing for higher salaries or asking for raises. They also tend to estimate the amount they should be paid as lower than men do.
Interesting stats from a book by two women about how women need to do better at advocating for their own pay:
Again, you are the one with the ridiculous argument because it’s not my argument, it’s your ridiculous version of it.
I never said discrimination by sex or race doesn’t happen. Of course it does. You just can’t point to ALL disadvantages and say they are prima facie evidence of discrimination. And this is really not controversial, unless someone like you doesn’t take the time to think about it before you post a reply.
Except, again, I just showed a study about how when asked how much they’d pay people, women were rated as being worth paid lower, just because they’re women. And you’re boiling it down to “Well, if people just asked…”.
Sorry, but no. There’s also been plenty of counter examples in the media - see for example the guy named Kim who didn’t get any job offers, but as soon as he added a “Mr.” to his resume, got shittons. Women are paid less because they’re women, AND they’re not given as good jobs because they’re women. You can’t just ay “It’s just because of the job they’re in”. Women are in lower paying jobs because they’re put there, not because they deserve to be there.
No you didn’t. Your study said they were OFFERED less. An offer is just an offer. And it does not mean that all women are offered less, so it can’t explain all differences in pay.
No I didn’t. I gave a detailed answer with many legitimate factors. You are the one who boiled them down.
I also linked to a whole book, by two women, saying that women are partly responsible for advocating for their salaries better. They get it.
Again, you cannot use examples of SOME incidents to explain ALL of them. This is Science 101.
This is simply false.
Women are paid less in part because they have lower-paying jobs and work fewer hours.
That’s partly true, yes. But not always. Sometimes women take lower-paying jobs for the convenience of caring for children or quit to have children before they reach a higher pay level.
I DIDN’T say that.
You are still yammering on without actually reading what I said. Go back and read it carefully.
Not true.
Some women are in lower-paying jobs because they were discriminated against - a man was hired instead despite her being equally qualified. Some women are in lower-paying jobs because they chose them despite being qualified for better ones. Some made choices that led to having less qualifications. Some could probably get better pay but aren’t advocating for it as well as men typically do.
You are right in one sense - ultimately, the fact that women make less is about “being women” - they see the need to make different choices or are still catching up from past discrimination. The fact that women are more likely to end up caring for children is one of the biggest factors. In a truly equal society, men would do it just as often and quit their jobs to be stay-at-home dads or single dads after a divorce. But that’s NOT the same thing as saying that every time a woman walks into an office to apply for a job, she’s getting paid less than the men in that job. That’s simply not true. That’s why you have to do this analysis to know the true size of the pay gap that is due to factors that wouldn’t apply in the absence of a gender difference, including just plain discrimination.
That’s not just the gals being all cutely self-deprecating, that’s also in part a clear-eyed recognition of sexist attitudes on the part of employers. Women know that being as assertive as men in a work environment can get them automatically labeled “pushy” or “bitchy” or “difficult to work with”, and that employers tend to respond more negatively to salary pressure from female employees than to male ones.
I’m not saying that women shouldn’t make more effort to push for equal salaries, I’m just pointing out that there are often practical reasons why they don’t. You can’t just say “Oh, women should have more confidence” as though that by itself would fix the problem.
But the title of the book is “Women Don’t Ask.” It’s about negotiating skills, which partly involve dodging sexism, but partly just negotiating. Sexism is not the only barrier to women when negotiating.
And once again, I repeat - I didn’t say that.
I clearly said that the pay gap is due to many factors, including plain old discrimination. All I said was that YOU can’t say that it is ALL due to plain old discrimination. It’s a mix of factors, and it is quantifiable - the studies analyze how much of the pay gap is likely explained by discrimination and how much is explained by other factors.
In the quote that started this discussion, Tucker Carlson is the idiot who said it was ALLy due to other factors. Not me.
You come across as trying to heavily downplay these other factors, and dismissing things like the fact that employers are more willing to hire men then women, and more willing to offer money to men then women. The article I linked should have been “Holy shit, that’s awful”, and instead you blurted out some bullshit that shows you have no idea how the concept of averages work.
Well, sure, but since I said the same thing as you did from the start, telling me that in your reply just sounds like you weren’t reading what I said carefully.
I downplay them exactly as much as the studies showed they should be downplayed. No more, no less.
I made it clear from the beginning that I wasn’t dismissing discrimination as a factor. Very clear. You just reacted instead of reading my posts carefully.
The reason I didn’t say “holy shit, that’s awful” is because I already knew about it, and I already agree that it is awful. You were using it as a rebuttal to something I didn’t say in the first place. That’s why you got that response.
I found your response to my post equally inappropriate in the first place. You are mad, but I’m not the one you should be mad at.
I’m not denying the problem, I’m understanding it better. That’s how you solve problems.
From this exchange, I’m quite confident that my math and science skills would stack up quite well against yours.
You were the one who said that the guy who claimed “women make more than men if you count the time they take off work” was ‘mostly right’. You were the one who said:
Showing you don’t understand how women have lower AVERAGE pay because they’re offered (and thus paid) less, how how them being OFFERED less money proves they are considered less valuable.
You said bullshit like:
And then:
So yeah. Sorry, but you are self-contridictory, bullshitting to defend valuing women less because they’re women. Go take your misogynistic bullshit and shove it up your ass. Nobody even mentioned the goddamn 30% number in this thread before you did, so your arguing against it is a total strawman.
Your study was shown to be bullshit, and willing to admit it or not, you’re arguing that gender discrimination to keep people from getting paid equal money “isn’t that bad”. When presented with the fact that there is a 14% pay gap based on gender, you just dismiss it as “an offer is just an offer”. Well, I’m just going to dismiss you - an idiot is just an idiot. If you want to defend a guy who thinks women deserve to be paid less then men while claiming they’re favored, well - go ahead and show what kind of character you are.
Your constant insistance of “in part”, “mostly right”, while outright dismissing evidence against you doesn’t fool anybody, it just makes you the fool.
He is mostly right. And how right he is is quantifiable, as my study showed.
(Mostly doesn’t mean entirely, by the way).
Of course they have lower average pay. That’s the wage gap. Duh. My point is that an average tells you nothing about the cause. You can’t compare apples and oranges.
Wow.
It’s too bad that you are so angry that you can’t discuss this rationally and you have to make up lies about me and what I’ve said.
[QUOTE]
Nobody even mentioned the goddamn 30% number in this thread before you did, so your arguing against it is a total strawman.
[QUOTE]
No, the 30% is the commonly cited wage gap. It’s the number most people like you cite. It’s the point of this discussion. (But I think the latest figures are more like 23%. I don’t know if Obama cited a figure).
No it wasn’t.
Where the FUCK did you get THAT? I said no such thing.
I said the gap “isn’t that bad” meaning the part of the gap attributable to discrimination is smaller than the total gap.
You’ve been reactionary from the beginning, and that’s why you can’t handle this discussion and only hear what you want, not what I’ve said.
No, the gap is more like 23% - until you analyze it JUST like I’m saying.
Your 14% number apparently comes from a study, just like mine, that accounts for othe factors. By citing 14%, you reveal that you AGREE WITH ME. Yet you are just too mad to see it.
I don’t believe that.
I don’t think you are the kind of person to give much of a damn about treating other people unfairly, as you’ve done with me. So I’ll just tell you this - you are NOT going to help fight gender discrimination with this kind of ridiculous crap you’ve thrown at me.
No, it makes you the fool. I’m not dismissing anything, you are.
It’s too bad too. I’m a strong supporter of women’s rights and gender equality and all that. You’re wasting your anger.
P.S. There’s a fine line between saying women are victims because they aren’t offered more money and saying women are helpless to advocate for themselves and need someone else (men?) to negotiate for them. Just keep that in mind.
I will agree. I didn’t see your post before I made mine. I will leave it up to lance to make a thread on why he thinks women deserve the lower pay they’re receiving, if he’d like to continue the discussion. I’m out of town this weekend, or otherwise I’d be pitting this buffoon. God, how the fuck does someone say “Stop making up lies about what I said” and immediately follow it with “This is the number people like you would use so I used it”.