Matt Dillahunty, The Atheist Experience, and SJWs
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Well the way it's sometimes used as a factoid is a bit of a red herring. It's used in sentences like "a woman's dollar is 85 cents" or something like that, while for the same job for the same experience a woman's dollar is more akin to 95 cents or so. The first factoid makes it sound like women are paid less for the same job, which is overwhealmingly an oversimplification (but a nice soundbite) and illegal in most western countries. That is not to say that it doesn't happen at all. There is that 5 cents unaccounted for, afterall. There is a pay gap, but not to the extent of what the factoid is saying. If by today's job market we were to reach parity with men and women, women would have to be paid more for the same job. That would be equity, but would it be fair? So there is practically no pay gap, but there is an earnings gap.
It matters how the gap is created, for one if you want to fix the gap. If you don't know how the gap was born, your course of action would be to rise wages for all women, creating equity with inequality. But if you know how the gap is born, you can encourage women to go to STEM which pays more, try to rise wages for women heavy fields like medicine and teaching, arrange opportunities for both parents to tend for their children, try to lower wages for the (male) corporate fat cats that skew the statistics etc. If you just stay at a low resolution look of the situation, you end up with platitudes like the "patriarchy" oppressing women. There are some truths to those, but ultimately it skews the view of what is going on behind the labels.
I just want to know the mathematics of why knowing the components of the volume of a region; changes the volume of that region? Very suspicious.
I think your analogy of boxes is not very valid in this instance. What if some of the grains of sand in your boxes are red, some blue and some yellow, some heavier and some lighter by colour, the substance in the boxes is not the same. I'm not saying that because of the earnings gap women are any worse or anything, but that the insistance on looking at one variable, namely in which boxes the grains of sand are, is just that, too simple.
Same sort of univaried analysis could be made for immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa into Finland (my country, since I know the statistics). About 30% unemployment. Is one to conclude then that Finland is hopelessly racist? If you compare this to Ethiopians, unemployment is almost the same as "ethnic" Finns, suggesting that the univaried conclusion is false, since both people are racialized as "black". If you compare the average wage of a Finnish Swede (~5% of pop.) to a Finnish Finn (~90% of pop.), Finnish Swedes make on average 15k euros more. Are we to then conclude that Finland discriminates Finns? No, because the gap in income is explained by few very wealthy Swedish Finns. It is important to know why these kinds of things emerge, and what it is our factoid really say.
Not only that, but it is misleading to talk of it as a pay gap, as if women were paid 20% less for the same jobs, which is false. Most of that 20% is accounted for by the fields into which women go to and the propensity of women to care for their children at home, not by the wages are paid for the same jobs. If you look at the growth of wages in women and men, in women the growth slows around 30 years or so, suggesting that family life decreases women's wages, since women are often the primary care givers either out of choice or by expectations. So to fix the gap either women should stop having children, men should tend to the children more or they should hire outside help.
If I was to tell my colleagues that knowledge about the cause of a shortfall, reduces the size of the shortfall; I'd be laughed out of the building (and probably be escorted out by security).
A better analogy would be if you were accused of causing the shortfall, and then said that the shortfall was in fact caused by the intern instead.
Mylar you are displaying how irrational you are on this topic and how feminists use deceit to to promote false claims.
It is interesting that my suggestion that we follow grade school level mathematics principles in our treatment of numbers; gets me accused of irrationality and deceit.
It is possible to use mathematics in a deceitful manner.
You box/volume analogy is out of context, irrelevant, and a red herring....but you already knew that.
There are many types of feminism.
Where have I said that the reasons for the gap to exist, reduce the gap? It doesn't reduce the statistics at hand, but it informs you that you were mistaken in thinking it was a pay gap (ie. same job, different wage), when in reality it was an earnings gap. Wouldn't you want to know whether you were looking at a cat or a dog? I mean, they are all mammals, so who cares? The point is about the meaning of the gap, not magically reducing the gap by uttering words. But you need to know the meaning of the gap in order to enact policy that targets the reasons why the gap exists. And if it is masqueraded as a pay gap (and some of that exists, some 5%), it distorts people's image of reality and the causes of the gap.
Notice how that gives us: (gap) - (something) = (gap)
Notice if you would just add the label "unexplained", it would fix it: (gap) - (something) = (unexplained gap)
It's not unexplained, some feminists promote it to as a plot against women based on on the fact they are women.
Where it is more to do with choices women make and also some jobs have different pay scales and some employers hire people at different rates based on how much income that employee can generate.
Sportspeople get paid different salaries for the same team.
Lebron just got a 154million contract, I can earn about $2 for playing the same sport until I am ejected from the team because I can't play. Should I scream paygap unfair.
Well that is a larger question of what is societally expected of women and men. Still women overwhealmingly stay at home to rear the children. A 3 year stay at home is estimated to decrease the income of a person by 30% upon returning to work. That's pretty huge cut to many a woman's pay check. Also it is said that women find it harder to reach to the top positions at companies. I haven't read what explains this, is it sex discrimination or lack of qualified canditates at that level. Somehow I think it'd be the first, since at that level the golden handshakes and old boys clubs are what matter. Also divorce is an issue. Courts overwhealmingly give children to the mothers, causing the new single parent to miss work, and probably end up working only part time. And of course, why do men and women choose the professions they choose. Is it because they want them, or because it is expected of them?
Then there is the whole personality thing. People like J. Peterson claim that the differences in the way men and women think, are due to sexed brains essentially. As a layman I've been trying to sort trough which is it, nature or nurture, through a (tiny) bit of reading, but needless to say the problem seems to be methodological. How can you get to nature, when everything is touched by nurture? (But then again even nurture is nature, if you are a reductionist.) Scandinavia is often cited as showing that in more equal countries the sexes differ even more in job market distribution betweeen occupations (haven't read the studies), but that's like saying that opportunity is equal there, and that there is no different cultural expectations for women. Say hello to any Women's Studies department in Scandinavia and they will slap a brickworth of peer reviewed papers showing that Scandinavia is a misogynist hellhole. Now personally, from the evolutionary point of view it would make sense to think that there are some innate diffefences, but to what extent, and how does nurture effect them? This of course shouldn't mean that women, or men for that matter, should be discriminated against based on their sex.
Then there is the whole question of why do we value eg. designing objects instead of health or learning? Is it because healthcare and teaching are "women's professions"? Is it because capitalists have had a harder time capitalising on them? Or is it because healthcare & teaching tend to be state or NGO run? Why can't it be all of the above? Same with women in sports. Why do we enjoy watching men risk their lives running towards each other to catch a ball? Are we culturally brainwashed into watching these mock cock fights, or is it natural to us to devalue some male life, and at the same time reward such brazen activity with wealth? Men after all dominate the death industries. Why is women's foottball or boxing not valued as much as men? Is it sexism or something else?
Here is something I ask you to consider, on why people pay so much money to see men brutally Pit themselves against each other? Modern sport is just a civilised version of gladiators. The point of its structure and attraction is the same for why organisations are hierarchical from military to corporations. The point is to have a ranking system so women can identify which men sit where with the most Alpha males at the top. You can prolly guess the reason - it is all to do with hypergamous female nature and evolution.
Women want to identify the alpha males to breed with.
It's part of LMS theory, an ugly physically weak male that can't provide lots of resources is pretty much a worthless expendable commodity to women.
The good part of feminism for men is that it relieves that burden from men to be the most Alpha best resource provider for women. Some men recognise the burden feminism has lifted from them and they no longer Pit themselves against other men and risk their own lives to be that provider.
The contradiction is now feminists write endless articles wonderin where all the good men have gone. Men are free to do what pleases them now instead of living to please women .this usually happens when a society is about to fail, verifiable historical fact.
Men have been disposable throughout history, and what we know of prehistory. Disposable in war and disposable in the economy. To serve the needs of the ruling men, most men, like women, were subjugated, but also for the survival for the polity itself, and for their protection. From a reproduction side the reason seems obvious for the disposability of men. In a tribe of 10, if there is one man and 9 women, there could be 9 children next year. But if the situation is reversed, there is only one child. (And maybe 8 dead guys?) Is that the reason, though? Probably not. Im just armchair anthropologying here.
As a student of history I would like to see these verifiable facts of history. I don't remember reading about that in my studies about the fall of the Roman Empire, Soviet Union, ancien regime France (although the libertines were into all kinds of stuff, though) or the Khalifate. Or any number of empires really. Feminism and political rights for women is an enlightenment idea.
Gonna try find the academic that had a theory named after him that analysed failed cultures. Check in later.
Here ya go, written before fourth wave feminism, quite a respected book. Basically called Unwin theory which seems to be supported as the data unfolds.
"In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. Aldous Huxley described Sex and Culture as "a work of the highest importance".
According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses its cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, says the author, is irrevocable. Unwin also infers that legal equality, and only legal equality, between women and men is necessary to institute before absolute monogamy is instituted, otherwise the monogamy will erode in the name of emancipating women. As he shows has occurred numerous times and places throughout all of written history."
All I can find about this is from MGTOW people. MGTOW is basically the radical feminism, a la Valerie Solanas, of the MRA movement. It doesn't make the claims wrong, but that it suggests there is some reason why actual anthropologists are not interested in the work. And that the movement has adapted it for convenince's sake. His theory seems to be based on Freudian theories. Freud has been pretty much abolished from psychological literature. Talking about various "energies", like some such existed. Correlation also does not imply causation. Ultimately I would have to read the book to say anything reaso able about it.
1938 is a long time ago really for a theory.
It's interesting how different minds work. I think I explained it clearly why it matters what it is we are really comparing, but you got stuck to this one ambiguous paragraph, where I failed to distinguish that the gaps are different gaps, and that the latter gap when controlled for the things mentioned more clearly reflects the pay difference in men and women, than the first gap that only compared the sexes. That's fine and all, but I though I explained myself clearly. Ok, let me paraphrase that one more time.
It is claimed that there exists a "pay gap" of 20% between men & women. This is deduced from comparing average incomes between the sexes. If you control for seniority, occupations etc. the gap that was claimed to reflect pay differences in men and women reveals itself to not accurately portray the pay difference for men and women in similiar jobs. The true "pay gap" is revealed to be around 5%, or some 20-10%, depending on the country, of the previously claimed "pay gap". It is then revealed through this more rigorous comparison shows that to call the previously claimed "pay gap" as a "pay gap" is misleading. More accurate term for it is an "earnings gap", reflecting that it is not the pay that is different in job by job comparison, but the difference comes from other factors overwhealmingly than simply that women are paid differently for the same jobs.
Why does this matter? I think I made it pretty clear in my previous posts, but I will reinstate those too. It gives a clearer picture what is going on. I've heard actual adults, because of the misleading way the factoid is used to think that most men receive more money for the same jobs. That is simply not true. It informs why the "earnings gap" exists. It's not that firms discriminate women in pay (although that too happens, 5%'s worth), but that somethings are keeping women from getting into the higher paid professions, like expectations or desires to rear children, that female heavy fields are paid less and that women dominate the part time job market.
Have I explained my position more clearly?
When I see shit math, I stop reading. No point going any further. And there is a lot of shit math out there.
So you didn't even bother to read my other posts? Had you read them, I think you would have gotten the jist way before wasting all this time. It's fine and all, you don't owe me to read any my posts or anything, but it's not in keeping with the principle of charity.
I described the problem 4 times carefully, without politics. What responses did I get? Political rants (from you) and attacks (from another user); instead of just making a simple correction.
The refusal to correct bad math, despite careful correction being offered repeatedly; deserves and will receive no charity from me.
The bad math is not the miscommunication between a few individuals on this site it is the deceit, dishonesty and mass manipulation feminists have used on the public to make a totally justified earning difference amongst employees look like a evil plot by the patriarchy to keep women down.
That lie is what good people should be angry at.
It just transfers the question of one level of analysis to another. If the reason for the earnings gap is not in pay for the same jobs, it doesn't yet mean that women simply choose to go into lower paying or part time jobs, but that there could be some other form of discrimination or sexed expectations at work. The reasons for the earnings gap is overwhealmingly the fact that women are primary caregivers for children, and do the majority of housework. The question then is, why is this so? Are women acculturated into primary caregivers, is it their "nature", or is it a choice by the family, because of some reason. A solution could then be to give men leaves from work too to take care of thr children, and encourage men to do more housework.
Females of our species bear the children, biological fact. Scientists have successfully raised a fetus in a plastic bag, a lamb. Do women want that job outsourced to plastic bags so they can get on with their career? It evidently not impossible.
Women biologically might in general have the biological difference that make them more attracted to nurturing type jobs, the market tends to pay less for those jobs but do we abandon a free market. Most men won't take a job in childcare because they are scared of being called a child molester, it's a real problem in schools because no positive male role models.
As far as housework ffs every male I know enjoys cooking and they share the housework load happily, what males do you know?
The West is already below replacement birth rates and will go extinct if things don't change. Migration is the only thing keeping the population aging too rapidly in the West and you know what the migrants are mostly hard patriarchs and they breed more .... correlation?
Artificial wombs would be awesome. Especially for the reproduction for homosexual men. At this point they are really shafted because abortion is hard and womb renting is illegal in most places.
There is evidence for difference in males and females on average, it seems, but the categories overlap too. (Although again, is it nurture or nature?) But there is also evidence for male heavy work getting more pay. Computer engineering is often cited, a female heavy line im the past wirh low pay, after which being dominated by males, the wages rose. The reverse for ticket jockeys. But on both instances there can be other reasons for that too, instead or in addition to the sex change.
The anecdotal evidence of me knowing men who cook does not topple the population wide evidence that women do more housework on average than men. It would be interesting to see if housework is more tied to personality traits than sex, though. It varies from country to country, but the gap is like 30%. About as much more as men work more outside of the house than women do. The earnings gap has been called the mom and dad gap too, since moms tend to work more at home, and dads more outside the home.
I agree about the bit about males though. I've been afraid to help little lost children, when I worked as a cashier, out of fear of being thought of as a child molester. It's silly I know, but nevertheless it's true. All males are too much vilified because the actions of some men. Also the discource is too much sexed, since female domestic violence is rarely talked about, although it exists too. If it is brought up, you are accused of gaslighting. To a degree it's true, but then again it's about our mutual human problems. If it can be damaging to self esteem for women or ethnic groups to see negative stereotypes about their group on TV, why would it be any different for men?
If you look at males today, more and more of them are failing in school, failing at work, failing in family life and descending into meaninglessness of porn and video games all around the western world. It's a real problem. Very few people also seem to care about it, but that is no wonder, we are acculturated, or natured(?), to not care about male suffering. Now this is not to say that women have more power in general than men, just that men are people too. I read a few articles on the MGTOW movement a time ago from Vice, was it, and they were all very toxicly written. Not really journalism at all, but hit pieces. Sure they engage in misogynistic language alot, and treat women like objects, but WHY is that? Why are they hurting and acting like they do? The narrative seems to be that because the male sex is losing their "patriarchal privilege", that it is just a backlash on progress. Maybe, but sounds to me just a rehash of women good vs. men evil narrative. The funny thing is that MGTOW is basically the radical feminists of the second wave, who wanted nothing to do with men, but just the reverse sexwise. Also the language at times was much more misandrist than the MGTOW is misogynistic. Valerie Solanas for example called for the enslavement and extermination of the male sex in toto. Angry young men have not bode well for the stability of a society in the past. I don't know if the arab spring, for example, could have happened without the high unemployment of young men.
As for reproduction. There are way too many humans on the planet anyway. The west is some one to two billion people in total, depending on what you count as the west. It will take for ever to for the west to commit population suicide if people are still having 1,5 children instead of 2,1. We are on the verge of the AI revolution in industry anyway, Most people will become useless. And then we will be screwed. More meaninglessness and more angry people. Maybe even angry AIs.
Recent article about a guy who was approached by a lost child in a park. The Guy tried to help and his entire life was destroyed and had to move towns. All he did was try to find the parents. It was a hotel story for a good Samaritan.
You may have misunderstood Mgtow, they don't hate women. They want nothing to do with them. Saying mgtow hate women is as dumb as saying atheists hate God.
I did try to explain in the previous posts also why there is difference between the pay gap and the earnings gap, and why it is important to make that distinction if the earnings gap is to be closed. If that came accross as a political rant, then I'm puzzled.
I am not accountable for other people's comments. The comments by the other user were not endorsed by me.
I agree with at least most of your politics, but be clear: they are politics.
Clear to me. Although you should consider some men do get paid more than some women as do some women get paid more than some men when in the free market employers believe a certain employee is better at generating income eg a top rating celebrity chef , mma fighter, model, designer, bricklayer..etc.
There is no compulsion everyone should have equal pay.