In defence of the 'F' word

[-1=e^ipi]

Oh a SJW has come to enlighten heathens such as myself. Please enlighten me RB!

Seriously though. With respect to the 'wage gap', the vast majority disappears once you take factors such as education, experience, industry, type of work, etc. and unmarried millennial women out earn millennial men in urban areas is Canada, US and UK. Men are half of victims of domestic abuse but receive far less support, and men are more likely to receive online harassment then women (Pew research in 2014 found that 44% of men and 37% of women experienced online harassment).

[RB]

Oh a SJW has come to enlighten heathens such as myself. Please enlighten me RB!

Seriously though. With respect to the 'wage gap', the vast majority disappears once you take factors such as education, experience, industry, type of work, etc. and unmarried millennial women out earn millennial men in urban areas is Canada, US and UK. Men are half of victims of domestic abuse but receive far less support, and men are more likely to receive online harassment then women (Pew research in 2014 found that 44% of men and 37% of women experienced online harassment).

The wage gap still persist - you must be talking about menial jobs - I can agree but it stops at $12/hr. Bertrand, M., & Hallock, K. F. The gender gap in top corporate jobs. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 55(1), 3-21literature confers gender gap for managers - women make 45% of what men make for the same job. Since I deal with research in education linked to intelligence, abilities and work I fear you are incorrect to say women earn more than men or on par for more senior jobs. There is a direct increase in wages if women attain more education, but the increase is not relative to men. Sorry, I have no agenda I just have the data .

[TimG]

There is a direct increase in wages if women attain more education, but the increase is not relative to men. Sorry, I have no agenda I just have the data .

Do you have the data for tall men vs short men or attractive men vs ugly men? Should we care about the fact that short ugly men get paid less than average? Edited April 25, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

Do you have the data for tall men vs short men or attractive men vs ugly men? Should we care about the fact that short ugly men get paid less than average?

I think so, if it turns out that fact only ever gets presented as a reason to continue justifying inequalities that other people in the food chain are experiencing. When it's the only reason you've got it's obvious you're well past the point of caring.

[GostHacked]

There's two main reasons I don't identify as a feminist.

First of all, I'm not sure what it means anymore. I know what it used to mean, and by that definition I'm certainly a feminist. But in recent years it seems to be becoming attached to all kinds of other far-left causes that I don't support and don't even understand how they became associated with feminism.

The second reason, closely aligned with the first, is that if you identify yourself as a feminist, you're taking on a lot of baggage that has become associated with that word. Just as I don't identify myself to people as an atheist because the word immediately conjures the image of some angry kook filing a lawsuit against a Christmas tree at city hall.

-k

{I was hoping this would be about the other 'f' word...}

A good portion of it seems to be straight out animosity towards men. Unwarranted animosity.

[-1=e^ipi]

Bertrand, M., & Hallock, K. F. The gender gap in top corporate jobs. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 55(1), 3-21literature confers gender gap for managers - women make 45% of what men make for the same job.

So you quote a study from 2001 and uses data from 1992-1997; it is 20 years out of date and is not anything close to an accurate description of society today. And if you actually read the paper, the unexplained portion of the gender gap is less than 5%; and that less than 5% gap is not necessarily discrimination, rather it is what is unexplained by the model (so could be discrimination).

So congratulations! 20 years ago there might have been a gender pay gap less than 5% for managers and executives.

I fear you are incorrect to say women earn more than men or on par for more senior jobs.

I made no such claim about whether men and women are on par for more senior jobs. As for women earning more then men, I was referring to specific demographic groups (Unmarried millennials in urban areas in US, Canada and UK), not for society a large. I recognize that US, Canada and UK are highly inhomogeneous and that there are demographic groups where men have outearned women, demographic groups where women outearn men, and demographic groups where there is no statistically significant gender gap in pay.

There is a direct increase in wages if women attain more education, but the increase is not relative to men.

Your wording here is a bit unclear, so could you please rephrase what you mean? Are you making the claim that there is no statistically significant difference between the Mincerian return to education for men and women? Or are you trying to refer to the fact that that women are 60%+ of university graduates as the explanation for why millennial women in urban areas are outearning men?

Sorry, I have no agenda I just have the data .

I also have 'the data'. I have looked at the raw data of recent (2014) labour surveys and done various regressions to explain differences in income between men and women. The 'gender pay gap' very much favours millennial women in urban areas. One of the reasons why you don't see this reported on or explored or published in papers is because of the immense confirmation bias of the media, the education system and academia. The media and education system constantly push the 'women are oppressed' narrative on society. 'Researchers' looking at gender differences in pay often approach the issue dogmatically and try to reach a pre-determined conclusion; anything that doesn't conform with the mainstream narrative (if an individual that would dare consider the possibility is able to get in a position where they are able to do an objective study) is unlikely to get through the peer-review process or get reported upon by the media.

I'll give you an example of the immense confirmation bias in research in this topic. Take Oereopoulos 2011

http://oreopoulos.faculty.economics.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Why-Do-Skilled-Immigrants-Struggle-in-the-Labor-Market.pdf

This study and similar studies have tried to look at the effect of the name of the resume on the response rate. Particularly, the researcher is trying to see if there is a 'foreign name bias' that makes it harder for individuals with foreign names to find jobs. The study sent out resumes in the greater Toronto area in 2008-2009 to see if there was a bias.

The study does find that there is a statistically significant negative effect of having a foreign name on getting a response to your resume, and this result was greatly reported on by the media. However, if you look at the details of the results, you will see that the study also found that being female had a statistically significant POSITIVE effect on having a response to your resume at the 1% confidence level. Not only that, but the magnitude of the 'male name bias' was larger than the magnitude of the 'foreign name bias'. And this isn't the only case where this result is found. Yet in the discussion of the paper, Oereopoulos doesn't really discuss this and it isn't reported on by the media at all. Why do you think this is?

My explanation is that it doesn't fit into the societal narratives. In many parts of the West, these narratives are 'Women are oppressed, men are privileged, white people are privileged, non-white people are oppressed, etc." The narrative that "People with foreign sounding names are discriminated against; society is racist" fits perfectly with the SJW/3rd-wave-feminism ideology where as "Men are less likely to have responses to their resumes" doesn't. If such a study found that it was male names that had a statistically significant positive effect on having a response to your resume, do you think it would get swept under the rug like it is for female names? Of course not, it would be discussed in the paper and then the media would use it as proof as to how society is misogynist and females are oppressed.

Edited April 25, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

Do you have the data for tall men vs short men or attractive men vs ugly men? Should we care about the fact that short ugly men get paid less than average?

I don't think that the argument will go your way if you identify more "oppressed" groups. People are bound to agree that those people are oppressed too.

[RB]

Do you have the data for tall men vs short men or attractive men vs ugly men? Should we care about the fact that short ugly men get paid less than average?

In relation to men and women - the issue is up for discussion - yes.

I do think there is information for tall men, and beautiful men having more opportunities and was discussed on this board before.

Fast forward regarding short men (my opinion) - in the future will become domesticated and whom women will seek as partners. The reason being women are working more and in order to have a cohesive family life (children) the reversal of women staying at home is perceived. Why short men are selected they match the age old conception of kitchen level (sink, counter top, stove) for domestic purposes vs tall men that would find it a bit more challenging to do dishes, cut vegetables for hours etc. and avoidance of stress. I don't mean to offend anyone - it's a different way to look at where we are going.

[RB]

So you quote a study from 2001 and uses data from 1992-1997; it is 20 years out of date and is not anything close to an accurate description of society today. And if you actually read the paper, the unexplained portion of the gender gap is less than 5%; and that less than 5% gap is not necessarily discrimination, rather it is what is unexplained by the model (so could be discrimination)......

Thank you for the response.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys and Gals,

I deleted a bunch of immature garbage and personal attacks.

Stay on topic. The next person who deviates 1 iota into thread drift will take a short vacation.

[-1=e^ipi]

Guys and Gals,

I deleted a bunch of immature garbage and personal attacks.

Stay on topic. The next person who deviates 1 iota into thread drift will take a short vacation.

Out of curiosity, did you delete the comments I made because the conversation overall was unproductive, or was there anything in particular that I said that was immature garbage / personal attacks?

Edit: would the references to 'listen and believe' be considered over the top?

Edited April 28, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Charles Anthony]

ePi,

Your posts are part of the collateral damage that stepped into the fray. What you lost represents what is lost when people respond to trolling. Most of it was good but it responded to trolling. I took out what I believe was the initiating troll-post and also every response that was a branch off of the initial trolling.

None of those posts are gone forever. They are retrievable. I can forward the posts to you so that you may copy-paste the good stuff back into the thread. Give me a bit of time.

[Guest]

I have got to make sure I read to the end of the thread, and not just the bottom of the page...

Edited April 29, 2015 by bcsapper

[WestCoastRunner]

Sadly Charles,you have stifled the conversation. you need to let it play out.

Edited April 29, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[WestCoastRunner]

Guys and Gals,

I deleted a bunch of immature garbage and personal attacks.

Stay on topic. The next person who deviates 1 iota into thread drift will take a short vacation.

Charles,

These are posts that you determine are garbage and personal attacks. How do you determine who deviates 1 iota and has to take a vacation. This is one of the major issues I have here. Do you determine who deviates? And where are the standards posted!

[WestCoastRunner]

This is a new forum and many folks have issues with the startup of this forum, but for you to attempt to practice censorship does not bode well.

[-1=e^ipi]

@ Charles - Thank you for letting me know.

[Charles Anthony]

@ ePi - You are welcome! They should be there in your mailbox by now. If not, let me know.

@ everybody - The same invitation is open to each of you. If you wish, I can forward transcriptions of each of your posts that are now hidden. You can sift through them and copy-paste the good stuff back into this thread if you want. I am not going to do it unless you send me a PM specifically requesting it. Some of you were clearly intending to be disruptive.

These are posts that you determine are garbage and personal attacks. How do you determine who deviates 1 iota and has to take a vacation.

It is subjective. I am not sure I can explain it any more than I can explain my preference for drinking my coffee black.

This is one of the major issues I have here. Do you determine who deviates? And where are the standards posted!

Nowhere. They are purely subjective. You are asking for the impossible.

In this thread, the basis of a particular post was a personal attack directed at a fellow member (and a rude attack, to say the least) which is objectively an act of thread drift. At the risk of stating the obvious, the member who is subject to the attack is not the topic of the thread discussion. Determining who deviated in this case was not more complicated than that. For what it may be worth, it would have been thread drift just the same if the attacker showered heeps of praise upon the target instead of being rude.

That is 1 more reason why we tell you folks to ignore what YOU PERCEIVE TO BE TROLLING so that when we cut out trolling and the responses to trolling, your posts do not become collateral damage.

If you can not identify for yourself when a discussion changes from the OP's subject matter to a fellow member, then you are going to run into problems.

[GostHacked]

ePi,

Your posts are part of the collateral damage that stepped into the fray. What you lost represents what is lost when people respond to trolling.

Is this the proper way to go about it? Should we not be dealing with the trolls? What was considered trolling in this thread? That way we can work to avoid it.

[Charles Anthony]

Is this the proper way to go about it?

Yes. All I did was take out the trash.

When everybody is trolling and or feeding trolls or feeding thread drift or takes it upon themselves to defend violating the forum rules, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

Should we not be dealing with the trolls?

Yes.

"we" = Greg +MikeH + me

"you"(dealing) = IGNORE

What was considered trolling in this thread? That way we can work to avoid it.

Somebody posted a personal attack. Other members responded to the personal attack instead of ignoring it and or reporting it. All of it was childish.

Despite appearances, the guilty party knows exactly who it is and was told exactly what/why the intervention occurred immediately after the intervention was made. Despite the common desire for public floggings and private gossip, there is no need to single that person out in public. That is not how we operate here. Suffice to say that people responded to something that was NOT the subject matter of the Opening Post.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes. All I did was take out the trash.

When everybody is trolling and or feeding trolls or feeding thread drift or takes it upon themselves to defend violating the forum rules, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

My problem is that you are deleting 'trash' that calls out trolls. You are throwing out the baby with the bath. You are censoring.