|
I'm curious as to evidence/arguments for and against it's existence? In the past, I always remember evidence refuting and QEDing it away but as of late I always see people off handedly dismiss that without providing any real evidence as to why that's wrong. I believe that it exists, I would just like to be more educated on the issue than just going "nuh uh it exists you dumb  "
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Calibanibal posted:wage slavery is categorically unethical OP, talking about wage gaps is like squabbling over the differences between field slaves and house slaves HTH communism is crap. The Oldest Man posted:"Women are in lower paying fields" is literally the refutation and that's horse poo poo, so I recall the refutation being based on a multitude of factors non of which were that. They were something along the lines of: -Women are less likely to haggle salary -Unpaid maternity leave/Maternity leave interfering with climbing the ladder -Women tend to not pull the old "Work at one place for two years, find another job" thing in their careers And they are usually backed by studies and surveys from reputable sources. I have nothing to refute that with, because they are all reasonable things that would indeed cause a wage gap that's not explicitly sexist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
but then why has it resurged as a cornerstone of feminist discourse as an example of modern discrimination? wouldn't it be more appropriate to approach the issue asking why women are less aggressive  on average in their careers? I think it's squandering an opportunity to discuss a sociological difference when it's approached the way that it's approached.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:communism rules communism blows the common man is crap and cannot handle the responsibility required to guide his own fate, let alone his neighbor's, democracy has proved this. we need a silicon sapience-based aristocracy. in both economic and political ownership. OwlFancier posted:Because if society has the effect of pressuring women to behave that way, that is of concern to feminists. I'm not arguing against that, I'm saying why isn't it approached in that way? Isn't it disingenuous to continue to paint it in the light of discrimination as opposed to sociological predisposition that results in less women making career choices that result in a higher pay? Isn't it wasted potential to refuse to use it as a springboard for that dialogue? Especially when it's actually a non-sequitur? SpaceClown fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
But apparently it is because it's resulting in more women receiving lower pay than their male counterparts because of a more common trend of less aggressive career moves. But in the mainstream, nobody is taking the opportunity to ask why that is. What are the sociological pressures causing this? Is there biological factors at play or is it strictly sociological?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Discrimination does not need to be intentional, or individual. It's not discriminatory when it's self-inflicted. There ARE women who exhibit the same aggression in their careers and make the same as their male counterparts, it's not even that terribly uncommon. It's a phenomenon of more women than men being unaggressive in their career choices and that translates to the wage gap. That's completely disingenuous to imply it's discrimination and not a sex-based trend. Example:  More women than men buy X car in Y color. Is that inherently discriminatory? OwlFancier posted:Generally I would consider it rather a pointless discussion, given that I see no reason to ascribe to biology what can be explained quite handily by the very well documented concept of sexual inequality enforced by a masculine-dominated society. And even if it could be explained by biology, the need is no less strong to erase the inequality of outcome. But then what's gained by framing it as the result of discriminatory hiring practices? I think it isn't a pointless discussion to talk about why there's a bigger trend of career-going women shooting themselves in the foot as opposed to men and finding out just why that is. Because otherwise there won't be a solution. The only thing that could be solved is the issues regarding maternity leave but that's not really as huge of an issue as the other two points that I brought up. Completely agree with the bolded statement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
foolish_fool posted:Can you provide an example of a wage gap argument that suggests it is entirely due to discrimination and/or doesn't consider possible causes and seek potential solutions? 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. http://www.glamour.com/story/women-professors-salaries-have-gone-up-more-than-mensbut-the-wage-gap-is-still-widening VitalSigns posted:Why is "aggressiveness" a good metric to use for determining promotions and compensation, as opposed to something more practical like say competency? Because we have to look at what aggression means here. Going into an interview with HR, the salary they pose is considered a starting point with intention of it going up. They expect you're going to argue that you're worth more than that. Not everybody does, plenty of people just take what it says. More women than men settle for that starting salary and bam. You've already started below the pay of your peers and that's only going to continue to be reflected even after promotions as your colleagues had a head start. Then you have the 2-year trick, which once again, women have a trend of not doing. More experience, more pay. That's the biggest contributor to making above baseline salary and the fact that the trend of women not doing it exists is possibly the greatest contributor to the wage gap. Think of it like this, the business you worked at knows exactly what you did during your stint there and will compensate you with promotions. When you apply to another workplace, they don't know exactly everything you did, only whats on your resume and it boils down to them seeing "2 years of experience at this company" as opposed to "cleaned up spaghetti code" or whatever crap task you did to get a promotion. Needless to say, that generic experience counts for a whole lot more. This is what I mean by aggression. The corporate world isn't a meritocracy, it never was and it never will be.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This starts from the assumption that the discrepancy is the result of women being born naturally whatever those qualities you believe explain the wage gap. Boldly, individually asserting their lower earning potential in the world. And that they are not primarily a result of socialization which functions to limit the achievement and freedom of women, intentional, or otherwise. I see no reason to begin with that assumption. But this entire time I've actually not done this and have been arguing from a standpoint that it's due to sociological pressures. Like I think I said "sociological" 10 times in my first 3 or so posts. Obviously an exaggeration, but still. quote:why does our society prize assertiveness? Is that discrepancy in which is viewed more praiseworthy and which rewarded more highly, indicative of an unequal society? Because assertiveness is a pretty massive signal of self-respect? Moreover, would you try this argument as to East Asian street markets discriminating against westerners because they don't haggle? If you don't think you're worth more money than what a corporation initially suggests, they are more than happy to pay you that lesser amount. But it's expected that you argue for yourself and demonstrate that you're worth more than that figure, because they want confident talent. 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, and are you really surprised that a corporation would want confident talent? quote:it is society that must change and in the same ways. I somewhat agree, however I have often seen answers that suggest changes like removing haggling from the hiring process or cracking down on workplace hopping neither of which are beneficial to nobody. You're just crippling people who know how to and are willing to operate in a corporate environment and forcing them to work for the crap pay their dipshit coworkers work for. That's not a solution at all, in my opinion.  The real solution, like I have suggested I think twice before ITT, should be to identify and analyze the sociological factors that go into why these trends currently exist and how to eliminate those pressures.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:what a surprise, the techie thinks there's a one-neat-trick answer based on his myopic life experience/worldview i actually quit my job and am now a full time well-fed artist, thank you. also I never was a programmer, but when i was working, I didn't go from no degree, no experience helpdesk dipshit to sysadmin in 4 years by twiddling my thumbs and hoping my manager noticed i was a good boy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:First of all, there are a lot of studies which show that, when women and men with similar qualifications and experience are evaluated for a job, women are systemically undervalued. This isn't about "oh, Susan is less aggressive than John, so she's not advancing as fast in her career" as much as "we sent out a bunch of identical resumes, save for the names at the top, and 'John' resumes got a lot more callbacks than 'Susan' resumes." quote:Or, on the more anecdotal side of the fence, pretty much any trans woman who's transitioned mid-career will tell you that, during her transition, she started getting a lot more pushback and questions about her competence. And, the critical point for that isn't hormone therapy or whatever else - it's when she chooses to start presenting as a woman. I've been arguing semantics ITT waiting for the first part, so this isn't really necessa- Wait what? I'm not even sure what this is addressing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
 if you grew up around computers and can't bootstrap yourself from a middle-class home to being a sysadmin I'm not sure what to tell you my dude its literally I can keep a schedule and work with a package manager: the job
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
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'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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
@owlfancier Turn on your monitor. Rexicon1 posted:It's a sick article though? yes it is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
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
|
|
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.