There are more of us than there are of them

[rah]

While there is still a gap, a lot of current research is showing the the real pay gap is a lot less that most believe. The big difference now is more of an opportunity gap

https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap is just one of more recent studies.

 

[Farm Boy]

Heretical.

 

[MaryKB]

While there is still a gap, a lot of current research is showing the the real pay gap is a lot less that most believe. The big difference now is more of an opportunity gap

https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap is just one of more recent studies.

The pay gap is not just simply that Joe and Susie are each desk clerks and earn different wages, it's about how generally working women earn about 20% less than men. A lot of that has to do with how our culture is set up to reward men with promotions, it's all artificially designed to benefit how men work (even when it doesn't make sense!) Women are expected to take primary responsibility for rearing children, are pushed into different types of work (that pay less of course! ... regardless of skill or training needed) Ugh I could go on, but really you should know all of this.

 

[Narz]

Sometimes women prefer to not play the rat race and stay home with the family when the husband brings home the bacon. Nothing wrong with that.

Also women often prefer different jobs to men, preferring job satisfaction rather than more cutthroat nose to the grindstone type positions. Nothing wrong with that either. In general no one is "pushing" women into nursing or away from construction, I'm sure there are some family pressures but what career a person chooses is just that, a personal choice.

A woman with equal experience and qualifications to a man will generally earn the same. But this derail is for another thread (probably already been done)

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Women at home are still doing jobs, they're just not being paid for it, which imo is also a big issue. Historically women have been taken advantage of and that there is another reason for it; that childcare, even for your own children, is a job in and off itself, let alone looking after the home, partner etc.

It's free labor that men have taken advantage off.

 

[rah]

The pay gap is not just simply that Joe and Susie are each desk clerks and earn different wages, it's about how generally working women earn about 20% less than men. A lot of that has to do with how our culture is set up to reward men with promotions, it's all artificially designed to benefit how men work (even when it doesn't make sense!) Women are expected to take primary responsibility for rearing children, are pushed into different types of work (that pay less of course! ... regardless of skill or training needed) Ugh I could go on, but really you should know all of this.

Yes, that why I referred to it as more of an opportunity gap. The article I referenced highlighted that. Maybe you should have read it before inferring that I was ignorant about it.

 

[Gorbles]

Except all that does is reword (i.e. obfuscate) the issue. The issue is still the pay. It wouldn't be the same issue if the aforementioned issue didn't actually change what people got paid. It'd likely be a different issue, but regardless, not the same thing as people are discussing.

 

[Akka]

But you've got to remember, while we do outnumber them, many are fanatics.

Irony is certainly a thing.

 

[MaryKB]

Yes, that why I referred to it as more of an opportunity gap. The article I referenced highlighted that. Maybe you should have read it before inferring that I was ignorant about it.

Maybe you should try wording your posts differently, instead of trying to divert off the issue and make it look like you're discrediting the pay gap? Because you know it's still an earnings gap, right? You calling it an "opportunity gap" doesn't change the net effect, so you might get better responses if you try to really add something substantive instead of just trying to critique my point through semantics arguments. You could perhaps consider context of your posts, and realize you're not being at all supportive?

Nice of Narz to mansplain what women want

It's very convenient for men to think that way, because it's what you want to be true.

And oh nice, another of the board's usual group chimes in, equating female equality to some sort of evil fanaticism

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh I dunno. It's pretty Minnesota Nice so far.

 

[rah]

Maybe you should try wording your posts differently, instead of trying to divert off the issue and make it look like you're discrediting the pay gap? Because you know it's still an earnings gap, right? You calling it an "opportunity gap" doesn't change the net effect, so you might get better responses if you try to really add something substantive instead of just trying to critique my point through semantics arguments. You could perhaps consider context of your posts, and realize you're not being at all supportive?

Where did I try to divert off the issue? I said there was still a gap. Note my post.

While there is still a gap, a lot of current research is showing the the real pay gap is a lot less that most believe.

I was just providing some empirical evidence to add to the discussion instead of opinion. Take it how you want. As a manager, I've always supported equal pay and whether you want to believe it or not, I have made sure that there has been ZERO gender pay inequality for women that have worked for me. Actions count.

 

[Akka]

And oh nice, another of the board's usual group chimes in, equating female equality to some sort of evil fanaticism

Nah, I was speaking of, well, exactly that.
The content and tone of your post I mean, not equality. The fact that you always completely shut off any diverging (or even toned-down) opinion, considering them wrong and the people who hold them dangerous haters, and that you only ever see the world through the prism of your narrative.
THAT is fanaticism.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Anyone who still believes the GOP and their voters can be swayed over are being incredibly naive, they've stuck to their guns with an accused rapist.

They don't care about anything other than owning the "libs".

I'm afraid you are being deeply naive @Hygro, almost willfully so, have you ignored what has been happening for the last few years? These are decent people who care about others, these are people who care more for their political tribe, even if it means ultimately screwing themselves over.

Accusations are not convictions, and ostracizing someone without solid evidence is an insult to due process and decency. Literally anybody in the world can be an "accused rapist".

It's talk like this that allows Republicans to win. If that's what you want go nuts I guess.

I don't see any valid reason why we can't have full equality for all people right now

One obvious reason is that equality of opportunity is intentionally cast aside in pursuit of equality of outcome, which makes alleging a push for equality ironic.

In the US, you can still be fired in many states for merely being Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgendered

Which states allow someone to be openly fired for being LGBT? I was under the impression that this was consistently illegal. If you mean that it happens with other "reasons" fabricated, that's true. But it's also not special to LGBT.

Yet you can't help yourself coming into this thread, krammering in with your hot takes on how white women have it "fine", like how the **** would you know? We have a literal credibly accused rapist on the SCOTUS and as the POTUS but you think the situation is fine?

Calling them "credibly accused" is like calling you "credibly accused".

No offense but i don't think women are that interested in telling you, of all people, about the trauma or issues they've suffered from because of their gender, least of all because i have a sneaking suspicion that you would find a way to turn it back on them coupled with your frankly lackadaisical attitude, you're the last person i could trust with these issues.

Everyone can have "trauma". It'd be a lot more convincing to refute the rate statistics Narz mentions, though Narz wasn't specific neither are you providing any of your own.

Oh I didn't realize the gender earnings gap and glass ceilings suddenly disappeared! Just for starters

Lying to people doesn't help.

While there is still a gap, a lot of current research is showing the the real pay gap is a lot less that most believe. The big difference now is more of an opportunity gap

https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap is just one of more recent studies.

Not comparing between the same job is openly dishonest, even if it goes on to talk about same work/pay later. It's still putting huge misleading figures front and center at the top of the page and pushing bias.

I'm not going to pretend men have it hard in general, but talking about an "opportunity gap" while STEM fields are actively pursuing more women, struggling to get them, and lowering standards is odd.

It's free labor that men have taken advantage off.

"Free" huh. That's an interesting take on reality you have there.

Except all that does is reword (i.e. obfuscate) the issue. The issue is still the pay.

Actually, it's okay for engineering positions and marketing positions to pay differently.

 

[Gorbles]

Actually, it's okay for engineering positions and marketing positions to pay differently.

Weird how you specify positions in different disciplines when I didn't, but I guess you've got to invent the argument somehow.

 

[Ironsided]

The Democratic Party base “in theory” is probably a lot bigger than the Republican Party base. However “Liberals” are a subset of the Dem base and nowhere near forming their own a majority. When Hillary an archetypical liberal said half of Trump-voters were “a basket of deplorables” she alienated a huge part of the democratic base. Many families and friendships have a mixed base and that is such a cheap shot from a privileged position. In such incredibly bad taste. And it’s still there in the DNC like a bad miasma strangling any efforts to win back the most natural base of the left. The unemployed who never bothered to vote but is just as quick as any high and mighty establishment democrat. Time to talk to them about their issues, honestly and at length.

I think the US have for the most part had a development of improvements progressively on social issues like gender equality, racism and LGBTQ. It could and probably should be much better but it’s not an area of decline from a left-wing perspective. Economically - is a whole other magnitude of problems and absolute failures. It’s been a long steady sailing to the right where income and wealth inequality has steadily been increasing to this day.

I think a shift is necessary. Women’s, Race and LGBTQ issues should not be in parity with the issue of income inequality, expanded employee rights or healthcare for all. Often they are symptoms of it. Beating these same old issues that everyone already voting Dems are on-board with is not the way to expand and win against Trump. You may snag one or two socially progressive moderate republicans but nothing like the mass of people who more or less gave up democracy all together.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Defending the honor of known rapists and sexual abusers to own the libs

 

[Ironsided]

It's a very good topic though @Hygro - it's an absolute failure that the alternative to Trump does not poll in the high 60%, at least.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Weird how you specify positions in different disciplines when I didn't, but I guess you've got to invent the argument somehow.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. In using median earnings to fabricate a "pay gap", your argument *must* be implying that such positions should pay similarly in order to be coherent.

Defending the honor of known rapists and sexual abusers to own the libs

That's a rather strong claim. Which people are *known* to have committed such crimes?

It's a very good topic though @Hygro - it's an absolute failure that the alternative to Trump does not poll in the high 60%, at least.

If they could operate with discussion consistent to reality they'd have no trouble doing so. It's not like Trump has a habit of only making statements consistent with reality. It's bizarre that the Democratic party seems more keen on attempting to out-crazy him rather than arguing policy --> outcomes with evidence. Trump would struggle against that, much more than he will struggle against nonsense like "words are violence", "we will use guns to take your guns", or "you should believe us as we openly lie to you rather than Trump who openly lies to you, we're the better open liars!"

 

[Gorbles]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. In using median earnings to fabricate a "pay gap", your argument *must* be implying that such positions should pay similarly in order to be coherent.

You were making up a correlation you already had a counterargument for to give me the benefit of the doubt, which you've followed up with a decree of what my argument must be (presumably so you can keep the counterargument you have prepared). I mean, that doesn't really feel like giving me the benefit of the doubt.

But I see one again we've crossed into the dreaded territory of what you consider "coherent", which unfortunately is a standard that nobody can reach apart from you. It's a losing game, and I'm not a fan of playing it

You've said enough by sitting on the assumption that any discussion of a wage gap is a fabrication, reinforced by you including it in air quotes. You've provided no evidence for any of your claims to the contrary, and have opened the discussion by attempting to invalidate people on personal evaluations of their arguments rather than the actual data linked so far.

You have no intention of treating anything about it seriously, or shifting your position one iota. Have fun with that, as well as with your rather amusing questions on "who are known to be rapists" when you replied to someone pretty obviously talking about the POTUS. Who is, on record, in favour of grabbing women by their body parts without their consent.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But I see one again we've crossed into the dreaded territory of what you consider "coherent", which unfortunately is a standard that nobody can reach apart from you. It's a losing game, and I'm not a fan of playing it

Yes, being incoherent is a losing game. It's better for the discussion if you make arguments that are coherent, rather than incoherent.

You claim the "issue is pay". The reason the median pay gap varies is that different vocations pay different amounts. To have a functional argument wrt "obfuscation", you must therefore be arguing that this reason is invalid (IE that different jobs paying different amounts is not okay).

If you weren't claiming "obfuscation", you could instead make a case that women get locked out of lucrative fields on average. It'd be hard to make that case in fields with affirmative action in favor of women, but you could at least try that angle instead.

You've said enough by sitting on the assumption that any discussion of a wage gap is a fabrication, reinforced by you including it in air quotes.

To be specific, any discussion of using non-stratified median income is a fabrication. A long-debunked piece of dishonesty that has about as much usefulness as arguments that video games cause violence. These "arguments" do, in fact, compare engineering and physical labor with ~40k/year desk jobs...somehow with a straight face. That's sufficiently dishonest as a starting point that it's fair to call it a fabrication.

You have no intention of treating anything about it seriously, or shifting your position one iota.

Garbage.

Have fun with that, as well as with your rather amusing questions on "who are known to be rapists" when you replied to someone pretty obviously talking about the POTUS. Who is, on record, in favour of grabbing women by their body parts without their consent.

There is no evidence supporting an assertion that Trump has raped anybody. He did say something stupid and offensive decades ago, and I don't particularly like him. But lying and calling him a "known rapist" is trashy and is more dishonest than Trump himself.