|
I know you are getting a lot of flippant responses from me and the pissboy gallery, but I would really take to heart what OwlFancier is talking about in regards to workplace inequality. You gotta frame the question right before you start going all socratic method on it.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
I haggled my salary and got what I wanted but my parents won't because they're scared shitless white management will laugh and rescind their offer and hire a white person instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Also spending most of my time working around non-assertive people, I have to say that aggressive people are the biggest headache in my day to day life. They're like the normal people only they're argumentative and don't listen and persist in doing things in the least productive way and wouldn't you know it they tend to get promoted. My left leg for a world free of assertive people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I haggled my salary and got what I wanted but my parents won't because they're scared shitless white management will laugh and rescind their offer and hire a white person instead. those cowards did not have the heart to want it hard enough, they're obviously lazy bums
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is an extremely masculine perspective and you should not attempt to universalize it. Again, perhaps this way of thinking might have something to do with masculine overrepresentation in the businesses you seem to be familiar with. I wonder if perhaps lack of assertiveness might primarily be a problem if you put it into an institution full of people who got hired and stayed on because the compensation process selects for arrogant dickheads, and not actually a problem with lack of assertiveness inherently? Just wow, my dude. Bad self-esteem isn't feminine you idiot. It's a byproduct of living in a crap society that treats you like poo poo for your genitals for sure, but it's not an inherently masculine trait to be assertive. But no, there's a masculine overrepresentation in IT because the men who work in it are loving toxic as poo poo, just like all computing fields. I only went into it because I could do it in my sleep, all I needed was to bust my rear end for 2 semesters at community college for an assload of certifications, and it payed the rent for a lovely apartment I found when I moved out of my girlfriend's loft. quote:Removing "haggling" from the workplace benefits everybody who doesn't currently benefit from it being expected... If you want to say it doesn't benefit you because you're good at it that is most definitely not "everybody". Yes I am actually suggesting that perhaps your compensation should be based on your contribution not on your ability to lie about your contribution. I see no reason to defend the alternative other than absolute selfishness.  Yes, forcing everybody to wear training wheels certainly does benefit the idiots who can't function without them. A good observation. However that's not a good solution at all, your real solution should be to learn why those idiots need their training wheels and how to stop them from being idiots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also spending most of my time working around non-assertive people, I have to say that aggressive people are the biggest headache in my day to day life. They're like the normal people only they're argumentative and don't listen and persist in doing things in the least productive way and wouldn't you know it they tend to get promoted. I'm a professional at workplace disruption. People idolize me for my ability to think outside the box and my distaste for conformity. For example when someone asks me for a hand writing something up, I agree to help them, but only to put them off guard so they don't expect me to walk into their office and piss all over the pictures of their family. My job creators really appreciate my ability to put existential fear in my co workers and they promote me once a week. I should make vice president within the year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also spending most of my time working around non-assertive people, I have to say that aggressive people are the biggest headache in my day to day life. They're like the normal people only they're argumentative and don't listen and persist in doing things in the least productive way and wouldn't you know it they tend to get promoted. I'll gladly take the assertive people and you can have the spineless ninnies. I have no patience for sad sacks with no confidence who can't believe in themselves. Have fun with your borderline mentally ill playpen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I know you are getting a lot of flippant responses from me and the pissboy gallery, but I would really take to heart what OwlFancier is talking about in regards to workplace inequality. You gotta frame the question right before you start going all socratic method on it. The question was what is some good evidence against these things, not playing semantics. OwlFancier hasn't answered the question, started the discussion on semantics, assumed my position for me, made snide passing remarks about something they know even less about than I do the wage gap, and continues to in general be a bigger clown than I am. At this point the thread is beyond derailed and I'm just waiting on those links to be posted because that's all I came here for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:I'll gladly take the assertive people and you can have the spineless ninnies. I have no patience for sad sacks with no confidence who can't believe in themselves. Have fun with your borderline mentally ill playpen. I wonder why some people not from a middle class family and that are told that they are inferior due to their sex/race might not be assertive...? A question for the ages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:Yes, forcing everybody to wear training wheels certainly does benefit the idiots who can't function without them. A good observation. However that's not a good solution at all, your real solution should be to learn why those idiots need their training wheels and how to stop them from being idiots. Eureka! The problem was that the females were stupid and didn't know how to behave. My god, the answer was right there all along and we just needed you to stumble upon it! No wonder the difficult job of Sys Admin came so easily to you. Why, no female could take to it with the ease and grace of a ballerina that you showed!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:Just wow, my dude. What makes you think that not being aggressive is indicative of low self esteem...? You do realise that this is probably the default state of the majority of humans? Why do you think there is something wrong with it? Have you considered that perhaps if there is a reason why non-assertive people seem to feel bad around you, you might be it? SpaceClown posted:
Explain to me why an unwillingness to over represent one's value is "idiocy" and why relying on that rather than actual ability to contribute is the optimal way to structure society, because from where I'm sitting you're arguing that the primary condition of success should be ability to lie about one's own value, something which you, seemingly, benefit greatly from. But convince me as to why your self-confessed easily replaceable job should command a worthwhile salary if it could be done so easily by so many?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
This is literally what I hear every time I read the word.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
hey when like 10% of us actually make it to xenforo in a few months imma thank that macro post rexSpaceClown posted:At this point the thread is beyond derailed and I'm just waiting on those links to be posted because that's all I came here for. i like that our big boy sysadmin here doesn't seem to be capable of googling
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:It's a lovely gossip rag website, but it's also a good example of how I always seem to see the argument brought up in the mainstream, at least. Ok, sure, that is an example of something that doesn't go into a lot of broad detail. But for a relatively short piece it does a solid job of conveying a fair bit of information about the particular corner of the topic it relates to (even more so if you follow the links within). I don't necessarily think we should expect every piece that forms part of an ongoing conversation to be a complete stand alone thesis (nor would I expect a columnist to necessarily be qualified to produce such a thesis to start with).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:If you're talking about why is assertiveness in this context considered more important, it's simple; Unconfident talent simply does not produce like confident talent. Do you have anything at all to back up this assertion that people who ask for more money are better workers on average? Or is this just circular reasoning: people who lie convincingly about their resume in interviews get paid more, and well people who get paid more must be better programmers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
It is cool to hear that a nerd who has papered over his profound self-esteem issues with aggressive outbursts has figured out that the One Wierd Trick to solving society's problems is for people to act more like him, though. This behavior is definitely unique to SpaceClown, personally, and not a conclusion Literally Every Sixteen Year Old Boy On The Face Of The Planet arrives at independently, typically getting over themselves ~two years later. Typically comorbid with a libertarian phase, so I find myself curious what our buddy's opinion re: Ron Paul is/was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:I wonder why some people not from a middle class family and that are told that they are inferior due to their sex/race might not be assertive...? Hmm It's not like I literally mentioned this in what you are quoting. Rexicon1 posted:Eureka! The problem was that the females were stupid and didn't know how to behave. My god, the answer was right there all along and we just needed you to stumble upon it! No wonder the difficult job of Sys Admin came so easily to you. Why, no female could take to it with the ease and grace of a ballerina that you showed! Yeah actually. The problem is that there's a bigger trend of women making poor career choices that result in lower pay then men (Although still waiting on those studies links mentioned earlier) This was covered. And then some. And time and again I have said "We should probably figure out why this is happening and how to stop it" while waiting for someone to actually answer my god damned question. But I mean hey, your misogyny, not mine my dude  OwlFancier posted:What makes you think that not being aggressive is indicative of low self esteem...? OwlFancier posted:Have you considered that perhaps if there is a reason why non-assertive people seem to feel bad around you, you might be it? dude. At this point all you're doing is throwing scarecrows at me and it's really not productive to the thread at all. Not that your weird semantics stuff was ever on-topic of the thread, but I was happy enough to indulge it while waiting for those studies. on that note:  PLEASE LINK THE drat STUDIES SO I CAN CLOSE THIS THREAD ALREADY OwlFancier posted:xplain to me why an unwillingness to over represent one's value is "idiocy" OwlFancier posted:why relying on that rather than actual ability to contribute is the optimal way to structure society, because from where I'm sitting you're arguing that the primary condition of success should be ability to lie about one's own value, something which you, seemingly, benefit greatly from. But convince me as to why your self-confessed easily replaceable job should command a worthwhile salary if it could be done so easily by so many? now you're moving the goalposts to what's the best structure for society? no, I refuse to believe someone is this stupid. here's your last golden reply box, savor the beta boost my dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you have anything at all to back up this assertion that people who ask for more money are better workers on average? No, but in support of your argument against such a thing, there's this article: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/75/3/315/ The main point of that was that corporations want a confident employee. It's been established they aren't meritocracies already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:It is cool to hear that a nerd who has papered over his profound self-esteem issues with aggressive outbursts has figured out that the One Wierd Trick to solving society's problems is for people to act more like him, though. an $18k salaried difference between two people making over six figures isn't what i'd call a priority of "society's problems" also what the gently caress even is this post? how does "we should figure out why women are less likely to engage in decisions that greatly increase salary and stop it" make you so pissed off that you have a meltdown about teenage worldviews and seriously what the hell is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
I couldn't find any studies that say that sexism is real so here's a really neat article describing gecko foot pad adhesion and how we still don't understand how it works. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145756
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
then why are you posting in my thread e: you weren't even invited here in the first place you drat marxist shitter
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
I admit I expected it to take longer that two pages to go from "please send me information about wage gaps" to "women are fundamentally broken idiots who deserve to earn less if they're too beta for my techbro job"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
It's a sick article though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
@owlfancier Turn on your monitor. Rexicon1 posted:It's a sick article though? yes it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
One big factor at play here is how insidious small effects can tend to compound to a degree you wouldn't expect. For example: take this classic study: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/papers/male_female.pdf. TL:DR: if you bias performance evaluations by a single percentage point in favor of men (which lands comfortably within unconscious bias thresholds), and promote solely based on these scores, you can easily wind up with a corporate structure that has a 65/35 split at the higher levels. What I'm getting at is: the amount of bias required to create unfairness at the systemic level is shockingly low. That's why the large-scale statistics are so important, and focusing on stuff like "women are just not assertive enough" is a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
I'd link the studies, but you're doing a pretty good job of playing the stereotypical shithead misogynist rear end in a top hat who is the exact reason there's a wage gap, and it's kinda educational. Please continue. Asking other people to do the labour of proving that marginalised people are marginalised is a big part of that stereotype.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Aramis posted:One big factor at play here is how insidious small effects can tend to compound to a degree you wouldn't expect. For example: take this classic study: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/papers/male_female.pdf. TL:DR: if you bias performance evaluations by a single percentage point in favor of men (which lands comfortably within unconscious bias thresholds), and promote solely based on these scores, you can easily wind up with a corporate structure that has a 65/35 split at the higher levels. Interesting that I hadn't thought of this when the concept of "straw that broke the camels back" is something near and dear to me. tell that to the other idiots who drew out the majority of this thread explaining the backbone of the argument against the wage gap and proceeded to inject their own narrative into the thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I'd link the studies, but you're doing a pretty good job of playing the stereotypical shithead misogynist rear end in a top hat who is the exact reason there's a wage gap, and it's kinda educational. Please continue. Linking studies isn't labor and I haven't asked anybody to prove the wage gap exists or that women are maginalized and it's pretty clear that there's a poo poo ton of classic DnD projection that I'm some kind of concern troll going on ITT despite spending the OP clearly saying "Gimme some studies so I don't look like an idiot who just says "lol u r misogeenist"" because that does loving absolutely nothing outside of this garbage subforum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:
The pay gap is an issue that is extremely complex. Focusing on the one small part that you yourself brought up (and then took in particularly disturbing directions) in no way suggests that many other parts don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
foolish_fool posted:The pay gap is an issue that is extremely complex. Focusing on the one small part that you yourself brought up in no way suggests that many other parts don't exist. The first reply was a shitpost that was completely off base and brought up something completely irrelevant to what was in my mind, so I had to refocus it. Other shitposters came in because it's DnD and that's my bad for engaging them in the first place, but I don't come to this subforum often and don't know which posters are crap and which are good. gently caress me for not being satisfied with saying "nuh uh" without having any informed counterarguments to back it up, though huh? quote:(and then took in particularly disturbing directions) You're reading into things too hard. Although I will say reading back through this thread, even with the worst possible projections you could have construed, nothing even remotely comes close to "disturbing" ITT and its kind of disturbing in itself that you'd be disturbed by anything you can glean from this thread. But what do I know, I'm an insane idiot clown who posts on GBS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:Linking studies isn't labor and I haven't asked anybody to prove the wage gap exists or that women are maginalized and it's pretty clear that there's a poo poo ton of classic DnD projection that I'm some kind of concern troll going on ITT despite spending the OP clearly saying "Gimme some studies so I don't look like an idiot who just says "lol u r misogeenist"" because that does loving absolutely nothing outside of this garbage subforum. It's not really the concern trolling, and yes, asking people to do internet research for you is labour. Regardless, the way you asked for it was lovely and misogynistic, and you've posted a ton of lovely and misogynistic things in this thread so far (which other posters have done a pretty good job of calling you on). Here's some data anyway: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/a-visual-history-of-gender-and-employment Also the reason women get less "aggressive" about negotiating for wages and against other bullshit is that the people holding the purse strings over them are predominantly male, and very often don't treat them equally. A man can get away with being aggressive where a woman cannot, and a wage system that favours aggression is going to perpetuate that bias.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:
How did I not think of this; our unemployment/underemployment problems could all be solved if people just filled the tens of millions of open sysadmin positions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:Now see this is what I'm talking about, can I get a link to some of those studies to bookmark? I knew there had to be more reason to it. Here's the study I was thinking of: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract . Looks like I described it wrong; the names were Jennifer and John. Now, it's your turn. You've made a lot of assertions about how the wage gap exists solely because women lack aggressiveness in their careers, and that career aggressiveness is a sex-linked trait (rather than, say, a gendered one). Can you provide something other than "here's wot I think" to back that up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Hell, here's a great example of how systemic bias plays out in the workplace: http://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/3/17/14950296/sexism-name-switch-tweets Women don't earn less because of a lack of aggressiveness. They earn less because men are misogynists more often than not, mostly without even realising it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:No, but in support of your argument against such a thing, there's this article: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/75/3/315/ I don't see how this applies. SpaceClown posted:The main point of that was that corporations want a confident employee. It's been established they aren't meritocracies already. But if this preference is arbitrary, then it isn't sufficient justification for the wage gap, in fact it appears to be the proof of sexism that you're asking for. Why are women less assertive in salary negotiations? If it has nothing to do with biology, and they're just socialized this way then our society inherently sets women up to fail by establishing an arbitrary standard and training them to not meet it. If it is 100% biology and women are just  less assertive then again our society sets women up to fail by establishing an arbitrary standard that they're biologically predisposed to be unable to meet.Also just in general if corporations aren't meritocracies and pay is based on something arbitrary like assertiveness then it seems to me we'd have a double benefit by abolishing that standard: we'd get rid of the wage gap which is good, and get rid of the inefficiencies we introduce by promoting people based on a useless characteristic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
I still can't find these articles ANYWHERE on google saying Sexism is real. Man, all I keep finding is more articles about geckos! https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/42/6/1081/698253/Mechanisms-of-Adhesion-in-Geckos1
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:Interesting that I hadn't thought of this when the concept of "straw that broke the camels back" is something near and dear to me. I don't think you quite got the point. This is not about identifying the cause. The conclusion to be gathered here is that even if you find, track and correct the causes of the wage gap, the end result is inherently unstable, and unless you maintain continuous fairness monitoring and training, you'll be inevitably back to square one eventually. To make matters worse, these stats only make sense on a large scale. So unless a company is large enough (at least a few thousand employees), there is no measurable way to determine if it's being unfairly biased or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see how this applies. Because the study is on how confidence and performance aren't correlated, unless I read it wrong. VitalSigns posted:But if this preference is arbitrary, then it isn't sufficient justification for the wage gap, in fact it appears to be the proof of sexism that you're asking for. This was the only question that I kept posing while waiting on the links and it derailed the thread because people thought it was some concern troll or something and I don't even understand half of the posts ITT because they are so detached from what was even being posted. VitalSigns posted:Also just in general if corporations aren't meritocracies and pay is based on something arbitrary like assertiveness then it seems to me we'd have a double benefit by abolishing that standard: we'd get rid of the wage gap which is good, and get rid of the inefficiencies we introduce by promoting people based on a useless characteristic. Apparently meritocracies are functionally impossible because we never seem to be able to make them. Aristocracies were meant to be meritocracies and look where that ended up. An unachievable ideal. Lead out in cuffs posted:It's not really the concern trolling, and yes, asking people to do internet research for you is labour. But I haven't been. There seems to be a trend of people putting words in my mouth ITT and I just spent a fuckton of time replying to a ton of it and I'm done with this thread. quote:asking people to do internet research for you is labour. I completely disagree and there's nothing you can do to change my viewpoint of this. Thanks for the links, even though they weren't what I was really looking for. Ytlaya posted:How did I not think of this; our unemployment/underemployment problems could all be solved if people just filled the tens of millions of open sysadmin positions. This is exactly the kind of offtopic noeffort shitposting that I'm talking about. I feel like I accidentally disabled FYAD's css Rexicon1 posted:I still can't find these articles ANYWHERE on google saying Sexism is real. Man, all I keep finding is more articles about geckos! nice. I'd say this is by far the worst SA subforum, but that would imply that the past 2 hours of pure projection and thread hijacking haven't been amusing. Shout out to the two posters who haven't been retarded and the two cool gecko articles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:36
|
|