Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 19, 2005 17:21:30 GMT -4
Some of the effect is due to different employment patterns between men & women (women tend to be more likely to be in part-time employment rather than working full-time). Also men are disproportionately represented at the higher salary levels. AFAIK, correcting for these factors still shows the average woman being paid less than the average man, but I'd be interested to see any figures Tofu can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 19, 2005 17:22:03 GMT -4
The better studies look at people employed in the same line of work. When you rule out location and business size/type, you still get a bias towards lower salaries. When you also compensate for position and seniority...you STILL get a remaining bias. Of course at that point it's pretty small -- however, if you go back to the step where you looked for only women and men at the same seniority at the same company, you notice there are fewer women in the senior positions.
I don't know personally of any studies that have attempted to adjust for pregnancy leave and that entire cycle that tends to cost women seniority -- there are enough "stay at home dads" in some regions where you might actually be able to compare one to the other; who gets to retain seniority, who gets promoted faster, after taking family leave. I don't KNOW of any such studies but I'm sure they've been done.
Basically, though, you gotta know what study is being talked about. Yeah, the trend is towards lower pay, but the numbers really do depend on how you are slicing it. If you slice to just union folk in the same position and grade and seniority...then, heck, union rules tell you they get paid the same.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 19, 2005 17:27:55 GMT -4
I don't dispute that your textbook is reputable. Do you agree that a comparison between persons in the same situation is at least worth looking at? In this case, "same situation" means unmarried persons with no kids. What is the harm in seeing that data? There would be less bias in such data - though a bias would still exist due to the fact that, on average, men are more aggressive than women and thus presumably more forceful in seeking higher pay.
At any rate, since you brought up a textbook, I'll tell you what I used to do when this issue came up in any class I was taking. If the professor was male I would raise my hand as ask if he was making more than the female professors. If the professor was female, I'd ask if she was paid less than the men. The first response is normally, "I don't know." But that's a copout. "Don't you think this is an important question? If there is injustice here at this university shouldn't we take action to right it?" Eventually, the professor will admit that men and women are paid the same at the university.
That brings us to question two: at what business or institution are men paid more than women? Where is it happening? Let us go now and protest the horrible inequality in or male-dominated society! Does CocaCola pay men more than women? Those bastards! Let's get them! Does Walmart? I bet it's Walmart. Let's get the ACLU on the phone and tell them what we've discovered!
Naturally, nobody can ever point to any business where the men make more than the women. But see, I really do not doubt the statistic. The question I have is, is this statistic evidence of gender bias? Or is it merely the result of actual gender differences? I do not think that sexism is as widespread as the statistic implies. I think that men and women (on average) just make different choices in their lives. And I think that is everyone's right.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 17:34:06 GMT -4
There is biase out there; a lot of it is subconscious. It's why tall men get better positions moreso than smaller men. It's why taller women get more jobs than smaller women. It's why African Americans, more often than not, end up dying because they do not get the treatment whites get... even if the doctors themselves are black.
There is prejudice, but it's not necessarily always overt, or willful. Many times, it's a minor influence... but that "minor influence' can be life-threatening, and job-threatening. It's subconscious.
No, I can't agree with you, Tofu. I think that there does exist biase.
Also, for that matter, the stereotype of men being more aggressive than women may be true, but a lot of it has to do with conditioning; women are more often conditioned to think that they're supposed to be more timid than men. There is a lot of research in this direction.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 19, 2005 17:43:35 GMT -4
I agree, but my central thesis here is: I do not think that sexism is as widespread as the statistic implies. I don't think think that sexism alone accounts for the large difference in income. My personal opinion (I'm looking for data) is that gender bias has about the same effect as bias due to, to use your example, height. I hope that you'll reread my conversation with a professor and think about it carefully. It raises a simple but important question. If women make only 70% of what men make, and if all of that is due to sexism, then where is this taking place? Just think about it. We are a lawsuit happy nation. What business is paying women less than men? Come on. You're smart. Think about it. Isn't it likely that the women at that business would sue? When racism was at it's worst in this country, you could point to a business and say, "there, see this? ACME Widget Company pays first-line widget inspectors more if they are white." So now we have an accusation of sexism. Where is the business that is guilty and why hasn't it been taken to court? Wont you at least concede that some women, maybe just one woman on the whole planet, has made a conscious, sober choice to stay home with her kids, because that's what her instincts tell her to do, and that this throws off the average income for other women? Can't you just concede that maybe that might have happened somewhere? I don't see what that's so hard, given that, for me at least, it seems like a common experience.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 17:46:31 GMT -4
Y'know, tofu, if you really want to argue this out, let's just make a new thread for it. This thread is derailed far too much. Plus, this IS supposed to be about the Apollo Hoax.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 19, 2005 17:49:25 GMT -4
Well guess what. My girlfriend (who makes more than me) is here and I have to cook dinner for her and treat her like the queen that she is. So, I give up for now trying to find census data to support my opinions. Here is the website if anyone else wants to have a go factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en&_ts=If you can find a comparison of the incomes of unmarried men sans kids to umarried women with no kids, I will happily concede my point (or rejoice in lucky victory)
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Nov 19, 2005 17:57:12 GMT -4
Question was answered, Margamatix. No it wasn't. Please answer it here. A one word answer will suffice. Has Bart Sibrel ever accused Buzz Aldrin of murder?
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 17:59:25 GMT -4
Not directly, no.
Indirectly, yes.
Does it matter? No.
He did accuse NASA of murder. That's so much better, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Nov 19, 2005 18:07:15 GMT -4
Is that "No"?
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 18:11:48 GMT -4
Damn, Margamatix, what the hell is wrong with you?
DIRECTLY, NO.
INDIRECTLY, YES.
Can you see what I'm saying now? Do I need a larger font?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Nov 19, 2005 18:16:44 GMT -4
Damn, Margamatix, what the hell is wrong with you? DIRECTLY, NO. INDIRECTLY, YES. Can you see what I'm saying now? Yes. You are saying "No"
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 18:21:19 GMT -4
*Sighs*
Yes, Margamatix, I am saying no. I do not know of a listed incident where sibrel has, directly, accused him of being a murderer straight out.
OBVIOUSLY, this means you are automatically correct in everything you say. I bow to your ability to argue forth a point. This suddenly means that the moon landings really were faked.
I have seen the light. Thank you, Marge.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Nov 19, 2005 20:48:47 GMT -4
OBVIOUSLY, this means you are automatically correct in everything you say. I simply was not, and never will be, prepared to allow you to introduce fabricated statements into the argument. This suddenly means that the moon landings really were faked. I have seen the light. Thank you, Marge. Friends are always welcome.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 19, 2005 21:10:19 GMT -4
And calling Sibrel a reporter wasn't a fabricated statement, of course.
|
|