Do Women Earn Less Than Men?

[ktchong]

 

[Gfted1]

I didn't actually bother with the videos but my wife make hella more than me.

[ktchong]

A couple of women I knew would not shut up about equal pay.  I emailed the videos to them.  Never heard from them again.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I love how the topic is tagged "statistics" and "facts", yet includes no actual statistics in support of the claims it makes.

 

That said, the second video is quite good. Almost good enough to offset how terrible the first one is. Almost.

[samm]

Wouldn't bother talking again to a guy that sends me videos with these titles either.

 

To answer the question from the title Do Women Earn Less Than Men?": Here (Switzerland) they do, yes.

 

Details if necessary:

Same job, same qualifications results in less pay (got statistics for that, official ones here: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/03/04/blank/key/lohnstruktur/nach_geschlecht.html) and applying for the same job with the same qualifications you stand less of a chance of getting the job if you're a woman (don't have statistics for that ready, but I'm sure there will be some available if necessary). Note that the Swiss governement is about 3/4 conservatives (socially, not necessarily economically), so if the numbers are skewed, they'll be skewed in a manner that suggests a rosier picture for women's situation.

 

[kirottu]

[Meshugger]

Dig into this fellas: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

 

 

Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

 

These variables include: A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work. A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home. 1 2 Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

 

Stupid women, why are you giving your family a priority over your career? 

[Gfted1]

Fathers should get maternity leave too.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Stupid women, why are you giving your family a priority over your career? 

 

There's nothing wrong with women choosing to focus on their family at the expense of their career.

 

But - contrary to what Mrs. Sommers likes to pretend - there's also nothing wrong with acknowledging that for many, societal pressures play a role in this choice. To claim that people are rational, free beings whose decision-making is independent of outside factors is blatant falsehood that flies in the face of everything we know about the workings of the human brain.

 

Another point worth considering: an average of 4.8-7.1% difference is not very meaningful data. Research shows there absolutely are professions where the wage gap is effectively nonexistent, or slightly slanted towards women. In other areas... not so much. 

[samm]

Fathers should get maternity leave too.

Agreed.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Fathers should get maternity leave too.

In their case it would be paternity leave.

 

But yeah, probably would be for the best if that was standard.

[Meshugger]

In scandinavia, men get paternity leave, but they do no use it as much as women. Stupid men.

 

 

Stupid women, why are you giving your family a priority over your career? 

 

There's nothing wrong with women choosing to focus on their family at the expense of their career.

 

But - contrary to what Mrs. Sommers likes to pretend - there's also nothing wrong with acknowledging that for many, societal pressures play a role in this choice. To claim that people are rational, free beings whose decision-making is independent of outside factors is blatant falsehood that flies in the face of everything we know about the workings of the human brain.

 

Another point worth considering: an average of 4.8-7.1% difference is not very meaningful data. Research shows there absolutely are professions where the wage gap is effectively nonexistent, or slightly slanted towards women. In other areas... not so much. 

 

 

I didn't see her name in the study.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is it paid leave?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I didn't see her name in the study.

 

I was alluding to the contents of the first video, not the study.

[Guard Dog]

My wife is a RN. She makes more than I do. Now at least. Before my contract ran out at my last job it was the other way around.

 

My department head at work is a woman. I am quite sure she makes more then the rest of us.

[Meshugger]

Is it paid leave?

 

It is to a certain percentage of the their initial wage (too lazy to look up now). But since women most often marry older men that already have a career, it usually ends with the men staying at work more since it is an economically sounder solution for the family.

[Ineth]

how terrible the first one is

 

Admit it, you just loathe Sommers for her involvement in GG.

 

Although the second video does get more to the point of the economics of it (not surprising, since it was made by a libertarian).

 

Wouldn't bother talking again to a guy that sends me videos with these titles either.

 

Do tell: How is a guy allowed to respond to repeated confrontation with misleading and untrue claims by women who have believed feminist propaganda?

 

To answer the question from the title Do Women Earn Less Than Men?": Here (Switzerland) they do, yes.

 

Details if necessary: Same job, same qualifications results in less pay [...]

 

Don't you see that "job title" and "qualifications" are only two of many relevant factors? This is exactly what Sommers complains about in the first video in the OP - that the people who want to keep believing in the wage gap myth for ideological reasons, cling to statistics which have factored in some differentiating factors, and then pretend like that settles everything.

 

Not to mention that feminists always keep regurgitating the 77% statistic (which does not consider any differentiating factors, and is thus completely useless) in bad faith.

 

That's what makes this topic so tiresome, it is an endless loop of:

• feminist (addressing person A): Women are so oppressed! As proof, take the fact that women get paid 23% less than men!
• person A: No, that's just a statistical average across the workforce, it does not measure wages for equal work.
• feminist: Well OK, but take this other statistic which considers 3 differentiating factors and still finds a gap of 8%!
• person A: That's only 3 of many relevant factors, not all of which can be easily measured.
• feminist: MANSPLAINING!!!! MISOGYNY!!!!

...next day, same feminist...

• feminist (addressing person B): Women are so oppressed! As proof, take the fact that women get paid 23% less than men!
• person B: ...

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

how terrible the first one is

 

Admit it, you just loathe Sommers for her involvement in GG.

 

 

I loathe Summers for her general wingnuttery, outright lies, malicious misuse of statistics, and working for an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist. Compared to these, her involvement with GG isn't even a blip on the radar. Neither is it particularly surprising, mind.

[Meshugger]

 

 

how terrible the first one is

 

Admit it, you just loathe Sommers for her involvement in GG.

 

 

I loathe Summers for her general wingnuttery, outright lies, malicious misuse of statistics, and working for an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist. Compared to these, her involvement with GG isn't even a blip on the radar. Neither is it particularly surprising, mind.

 

 

Who is the best feminist scholar?

Edited June 5, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I loathe Summers for her general wingnuttery, outright lies, malicious misuse of statistics, and working for an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist. Compared to these, her involvement with GG isn't even a blip on the radar. Neither is it particularly surprising, mind.

 

 

Who is the best feminist scholar?

 

 

Twilight Sparkle

 

I have no idea, but I sure as hell have a strong candidate for who isn't   

[Ineth]

I loathe Summers for her general wingnuttery, outright lies, malicious misuse of statistics, and working for an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist. Compared to these, her involvement with GG isn't even a blip on the radar. Neither is it particularly surprising, mind.

 

Hm, lemme get out my Progressive-to-English dictionary to help me parse that sentence:

• wingnuttery: Holding political or philosophical views which, despite being moderate and centrist in the greater political spectrum, are far enough away from radical progressivism that most progressives are completely and utterly unable to understand them or muster any tolerance or empathy for their advocates.

   

• anti-intellectual: Refusing to tow the party line of the radical left-wing politicization which has taken a hold of many social 'science' institutions.

   

• conspiracy theorist: Someone who dares to oppose harmful social and economic policies championed by the Democratic Party, by pointing out their long-term harmfulness.

Which leaves:

• "outright lies"
• "malicious misuse of statistics"

...which scream for [citation needed]. Can you substantiate these two claims?

 

[Nonek]

I thought by Wingnut he was inferring that the distinguished lady had large ears.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I loathe Summers for her general wingnuttery, outright lies, malicious misuse of statistics, and working for an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist. Compared to these, her involvement with GG isn't even a blip on the radar. Neither is it particularly surprising, mind.

 

Hm, lemme get out my Progressive-to-English dictionary to help me parse that sentence:

• wingnuttery: Holding political or philosophical views which, despite being moderate and centrist in the greater political spectrum, are far enough away from radical progressivism that most progressives are completely and utterly unable to understand them or muster any tolerance or empathy for their advocates.

   

• anti-intellectual: Refusing to tow the party line of the radical left-wing politicization which has taken a hold of many social 'science' institutions.

   

• conspiracy theorist: Someone who dares to oppose harmful social and economic policies championed by the Democratic Party, by pointing out their long-term harmfulness.

Which leaves:

• "outright lies"
• "malicious misuse of statistics"

...which scream for [citation needed]. Can you substantiate these two claims?

 

 

Using my superior deductive (actually, inductive) skills, I have ascertained that you clearly have no interest in even attempting to initiate a good faith discussion.

 

You did so wisely; being a supremely rational person, surely you must be aware of the statistics on the likelihood of changing a person's mind with a (reasoned) argument. Furthermore, you must be aware that it's fallacious to assume statistics somehow don't apply to us; in the absence of other factors, we should default to what we know, namely the fact that it's extremely unlikely for you to convince me to change my beliefs, and vice versa.

 

What puzzles me is the fact that the projected return on the investment of typing up that lovely little list you have there must be exceedingly small; most likely outcome is not even being dignified with a response (making the aforementioned investment a wasted one), or, even worse, it could lead to a protracted argument that only causes further loss of time and energy invested into furiously typing up walls of text and checking sources for both participants. Of course, there's the extremely small chance of changing minds, but I reckon your chances of doing so have been pretty much shot to hell after an opening like that. (Well, even more shot to hell than they regularly are (which is "very").)

 

So clearly, typing it up was an irrational decision. What prompted you to do so?

[Ineth]

So no citation then, for your harsh slander of a very level-headed, polite and sincere woman who happens to have a different world view than you.

[Hurlshort]

When my wife was pregnant with our second child, her principal set everything up as if she was not going to return to her job after she gave birth.  He basically went behind her back and had her replaced.  Thankfully she is represented by a union and was able to stand her ground.  Eventually it was the principal who was replaced.  The crazy thing is she gave birth two days after school got out, and was ready to return at the beginning of the year.  She did not miss a day.  I doubt a male teacher would ever have to go through that.  

 

That being said, we make the same amount as teachers.  

Edited June 6, 2015 by Hurlshot