"Smug Style American Liberalism" self critique Via VOX

 
 
 
 
 
Most of my experiences with left-leaning feminist women always ended with ad-hoc personal attacks against me, even after I presented logical, rational ideas in a calm discussion.

They were quick to shame me and call me a sexist/misogynist for disagreeing with them and giving legitimate explanations. For example, one topic that constantly gets them heated is the pay "inequality" between men and women in the same job/field.


What you be telling these women to make them so heated papi
laugh.gif

As mentioned, the topic of pay "inequality" always seems to get them in their emotions.

Example: I was having drinks with my homie and his girl a few weeks ago. We're discussing politics and joking about the self-destructing debacle of Hillary/Trump. His girl interjects about something she read online: women make 77 cents for every dollar men make. I ask her to explain; she literally just repeats that same line and says it's pure discrimination. I calmly explain to her that while the average wage for women is ~77% of the average wage of men, the difference is not likely a result of discrimination. I further elaborate that women are more likely to either temporarily or permanently drop out of the workforce. Also, women are more likely to work part-time and unsurprisingly, part-time employees overall make less than full-time employees. At this point, she's getting flustered. I continue to say that more women than men drop out of the labor force to take care of their kids, which is absolutely cool with me. I even put it out there that women without children tend to make a bit more than men without children (regardless of age). She's now heated and saying that it's not a woman's fault for leaving the workforce. I ask her, "So it's not a woman's choice to leave the workforce? Who forced her?" She yells that it's the children's fault for forcing mothers to quit their jobs. I'm pretty confused at this point, but she abruptly tells me that since this wage gap exists, women should be getting paid the difference by the government.


My homie is cracking up at this point (his fault for choosing to be with a self-proclaimed feminist and fan of Anita Sarkeesian), but I try to dig in a little deeper. I ask her, "If women are getting paid less, wouldn't companies hire women instead to work the same exact job, thereby increasing profit and minimizing costs?" She tells me she's offended I would even ask that and that discrimination is the only answer to this inequality. I send my homie a few links and articles that debunk this discrimination-based wage gap and he tells me she's not reading any of it. So much for being open-minded, huh?

laugh.gif
 

Famb you were rustling oye girl.
laugh.gif



-But she was wrong and you're wrong. She was right and you're right


The entire gap is not based on explainable factors (which economist generally gets labelled discrimination), but part of it is. It is well researched topic in Labor Economics, you could probably search on Google Scholar or NBER and find many papers on the gender pay gap. You gonna get real familiar with the oaxaca decomposition

I have read many articles showing that part of the wage gap is explainable, there is part of the gender wage gap that just can't be explain, at least by not any model out there right now.


That signals there is discrimination


-Secondly, you're "if women make less, why don't companies" just hired women is a nice troll job but I figure you're touching on this:

Women go cost women just much as men, and yes they choose to drop out the labor market (I'll touch on that). But during that time think about it, the company doesn't get any productivity from that worker, so in return he pays that women a lower wage to make up for it. Men don't drop out, so in turn they get a higher wage. I'm pretty sure this was what you were arguing to baby girl.


But


Women aren't just choosing to drop out the labor force on a whim. Taking care an child has large negative economic consequences, and currently America's social and economic is making women bare to many of those cost herself. Women should get paid maternity leave, so should men. Currently women have to stay home for weeks to months, yet men get looked at funny style for being out over a week. When you see both groups taking the same amount of time off after a baby, you will see the pay gap shrinking. Because their compensation structure will both change. Right now women generally have to drop out, while a man doesn't


Then


Now add to that the household division of labor is crazy unbalanced. Women put in way more time, and energy into raising a child and taking care of households (doing basic house work) than men do. This is time women aren't compensated for, time she could be in the labor market proving trading her time for more money, or investing in human capital that will lend to higher wages.


Then


Society (both men and older women) funnel our girls into lower paying careers, or act somewhat hostile to her entering a male dominated field. This **** starts from when like pre-algebra. Girls get told that being cute is just as important that being competent. So men and women might be in the same field, doing what is classified as the same job on a survey, but when you look closer the man's job is more specialized, and he can demand a higher wage


-So let's review. Women have pushed to make choices that will negatively affect them economically, men don't, and add to that women put in tons of work that goes uncompensated. Work that benefits other men, and society as a whole


It will take a combination of public policy, and men making different decision in the workplace, and them doing more work to take care and raise kids. Add women making different choices. But society is still on the hook for part of the problem It is all about trade offs. And someone the person saying it is all about discrimination, is missing the other half of the picture. So it the dude saying it discrimination doesn't pay a factor, or it is just women's choices that are lending to her lower pay.


I know you be getting wavy with liberation way of thinking and that people's choices explain everything. I dipped my toes into those waters at one point in life. But the most dangerous thing about that way of thinking is that it ignores the socio-economic systems driving outcomes we see in society


-And to be honest, you come off just as bad in your story as ole girl does.
all this is a good breakdown of why women get paid less and it is a societal "problem" but none of the green highlighted text does anything to suggest that it's employer discrimination. It seem's like you're supporting his point that the girl saying "it must be discrimination!!!" is talking nonsense because you just listed a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with the employer to why women get paid less on average.

the only time you bring up discrimination is on what can't be explained, which is a pretty weak argument seeing that you followed it up by doing a great job of providing a thorough explanation of all the non employer discrimination factors that lead to this statistic. 
-The second point (the green part) was not meant to explain discrimination. It was meant to explain some of the known factors why you will see women having lower wages. Just discussing the systems the produce those outcomes.

-Ole girl was arguing that her opinion is fact, Slighted was arguing no his was fact. I didn't say definitively that employer discrimination exist. I said it signals it does, not that it proves it.

Maybe it from me doing econometric work in the Labor market, but most papers to Oaxaca style decomposition, that is how it is discussed. Peoplehave tried to explain the differential in all sorts of ways, and there still remain some part of the wage differential no one can't explain.

So there must be some unobservable things going on that is causing that, and the most likely thing could be discrimination, it could be other things, or things no one had found yet.

But discrimination is used because it kinda fits, we can't measure the feelings in someone's heart, and thoughts in here head. We will never know, and the fact researchers have tried many things and some of the gap is still there, might be because there is truly something partly driving the wage differential see will never be able to observe.

And the best guess is discrimination because it makes the most sense. It was not an argument for anything really, just to point out to Slighted the case isn't closed like he claims
but in the argument with the girl, he was the one coming from a logical and factual standpoint (not saying that his argument is 100% on point) while the girl was just acting ignorant. 

in his story and example, he came with the stronger argument and she looked like a fool.

It's always going to be somewhere in the middle, of course there is going to be some discrimination out there from specific employers, but from your own breakdown of society and slighted's points it doesn't seem like discrimination is the main reason behind this statistic.

in arguments like this I usually assume that neither party is talking in absolutes because if they are then regardless of topic they are probably both wrong 
 
@RustyShackleford   To buffer your point on why discrimination is more than likely the key to the unknown parts of the wage gap we see is backed up by our society. We know in American society sexism is as ingrained in our society as racism and white privilege. Racism has affected the economic circumstances of minorities in this country and their are parallels to sexism in similar ways to why we see the numbers we see with the economic circumstances of women in our country.

Basically a general rule of thumb to understand some of these things is to look a the history of a society and see how which group's have and continue to be disparaged and that will explain parts of the situation we see in the present.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most of my experiences with left-leaning feminist women always ended with ad-hoc personal attacks against me, even after I presented logical, rational ideas in a calm discussion.

They were quick to shame me and call me a sexist/misogynist for disagreeing with them and giving legitimate explanations. For example, one topic that constantly gets them heated is the pay "inequality" between men and women in the same job/field.




What you be telling these women to make them so heated papi :lol:



As mentioned, the topic of pay "inequality" always seems to get them in their emotions.

Example: I was having drinks with my homie and his girl a few weeks ago. We're discussing politics and joking about the self-destructing debacle of Hillary/Trump. His girl interjects about something she read online: women make 77 cents for every dollar men make. I ask her to explain; she literally just repeats that same line and says it's pure discrimination. I calmly explain to her that while the average wage for women is ~77% of the average wage of men, the difference is not likely a result of discrimination. I further elaborate that women are more likely to either temporarily or permanently drop out of the workforce. Also, women are more likely to work part-time and unsurprisingly, part-time employees overall make less than full-time employees. At this point, she's getting flustered. I continue to say that more women than men drop out of the labor force to take care of their kids, which is absolutely cool with me. I even put it out there that women without children tend to make a bit more than men without children (regardless of age). She's now heated and saying that it's not a woman's fault for leaving the workforce. I ask her, "So it's not a woman's choice to leave the workforce? Who forced her?" She yells that it's the children's fault for forcing mothers to quit their jobs. I'm pretty confused at this point, but she abruptly tells me that since this wage gap exists, women should be getting paid the difference by the government.



My homie is cracking up at this point (his fault for choosing to be with a self-proclaimed feminist and fan of Anita Sarkeesian), but I try to dig in a little deeper. I ask her, "If women are getting paid less, wouldn't companies hire women instead to work the same exact job, thereby increasing profit and minimizing costs?" She tells me she's offended I would even ask that and that discrimination is the only answer to this inequality. I send my homie a few links and articles that debunk this discrimination-based wage gap and he tells me she's not reading any of it. So much for being open-minded, huh?

:lol:  



Famb you were rustling oye girl. :lol:



-But she was wrong and you're wrong. She was right and you're right



The entire gap is not based on explainable factors (which economist generally gets labelled discrimination), but part of it is. It is well researched topic in Labor Economics, you could probably search on Google Scholar or NBER and find many papers on the gender pay gap. You gonna get real familiar with the oaxaca decomposition

I have read many articles showing that part of the wage gap is explainable, there is part of the gender wage gap that just can't be explain, at least by not any model out there right now.



That signals there is discrimination




-Secondly, you're "if women make less, why don't companies" just hired women is a nice troll job but I figure you're touching on this:

Women go cost women just much as men, and yes they choose to drop out the labor market (I'll touch on that). But during that time think about it, the company doesn't get any productivity from that worker, so in return he pays that women a lower wage to make up for it. Men don't drop out, so in turn they get a higher wage. I'm pretty sure this was what you were arguing to baby girl.



But



Women aren't just choosing to drop out the labor force on a whim. Taking care an child has large negative economic consequences, and currently America's social and economic is making women bare to many of those cost herself. Women should get paid maternity leave, so should men. Currently women have to stay home for weeks to months, yet men get looked at funny style for being out over a week. When you see both groups taking the same amount of time off after a baby, you will see the pay gap shrinking. Because their compensation structure will both change. Right now women generally have to drop out, while a man doesn't



Then



Now add to that the household division of labor is crazy unbalanced. Women put in way more time, and energy into raising a child and taking care of households (doing basic house work) than men do. This is time women aren't compensated for, time she could be in the labor market proving trading her time for more money, or investing in human capital that will lend to higher wages.



Then



Society (both men and older women) funnel our girls into lower paying careers, or act somewhat hostile to her entering a male dominated field. This **** starts from when like pre-algebra. Girls get told that being cute is just as important that being competent. So men and women might be in the same field, doing what is classified as the same job on a survey, but when you look closer the man's job is more specialized, and he can demand a higher wage



-So let's review. Women have pushed to make choices that will negatively affect them economically, men don't, and add to that women put in tons of work that goes uncompensated. Work that benefits other men, and society as a whole



It will take a combination of public policy, and men making different decision in the workplace, and them doing more work to take care and raise kids. Add women making different choices. But society is still on the hook for part of the problem It is all about trade offs. And someone the person saying it is all about discrimination, is missing the other half of the picture. So it the dude saying it discrimination doesn't pay a factor, or it is just women's choices that are lending to her lower pay.



I know you be getting wavy with liberation way of thinking and that people's choices explain everything. I dipped my toes into those waters at one point in life. But the most dangerous thing about that way of thinking is that it ignores the socio-economic systems driving outcomes we see in society




-And to be honest, you come off just as bad in your story as ole girl does.
all this is a good breakdown of why women get paid less and it is a societal "problem" but none of the green highlighted text does anything to suggest that it's employer discrimination. It seem's like you're supporting his point that the girl saying "it must be discrimination!!!" is talking nonsense because you just listed a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with the employer to why women get paid less on average.


the only time you bring up discrimination is on what can't be explained, which is a pretty weak argument seeing that you followed it up by doing a great job of providing a thorough explanation of all the non employer discrimination factors that lead to this statistic. 


-The second point (the green part) was not meant to explain discrimination. It was meant to explain some of the known factors why you will see women having lower wages. Just discussing the systems the produce those outcomes.


-Ole girl was arguing that her opinion is fact, Slighted was arguing no his was fact. I didn't say definitively that employer discrimination exist. I said it signals it does, not that it proves it.


Maybe it from me doing econometric work in the Labor market, but most papers to Oaxaca style decomposition, that is how it is discussed. Peoplehave tried to explain the differential in all sorts of ways, and there still remain some part of the wage differential no one can't explain.


So there must be some unobservable things going on that is causing that, and the most likely thing could be discrimination, it could be other things, or things no one had found yet.


But discrimination is used because it kinda fits, we can't measure the feelings in someone's heart, and thoughts in here head. We will never know, and the fact researchers have tried many things and some of the gap is still there, might be because there is truly something partly driving the wage differential see will never be able to observe.


And the best guess is discrimination because it makes the most sense. It was not an argument for anything really, just to point out to Slighted the case isn't closed like he claims
but in the argument with the girl, he was the one coming from a logical and factual standpoint (not saying that his argument is 100% on point) while the girl was just acting ignorant. 

in his story and example, he came with the stronger argument and she looked like a fool.

It's always going to be somewhere in the middle, of course there is going to be some discrimination out there from specific employers, but from your own breakdown of society and slighted's points it doesn't seem like discrimination is the main reason behind this statistic.

in arguments like this I usually assume that neither party is talking in absolutes because if they are then regardless of topic they are probably both wrong 

Ok, and?

Yes most of the wage gap is explainable, and we must address that. But some probably is not, and we must address that.

I didn't write that post to defend the girl, all I point out is the could be some truth to her something she said. Plus I said they both come off bad in the story.

I just wrote the post to politely enlighten Slighted on something he might not be consider. Not to pick sides.

So I have no idea what you want from me famb, to say Slighted comes of better in a story he gave?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most of my experiences with left-leaning feminist women always ended with ad-hoc personal attacks against me, even after I presented logical, rational ideas in a calm discussion.

They were quick to shame me and call me a sexist/misogynist for disagreeing with them and giving legitimate explanations. For example, one topic that constantly gets them heated is the pay "inequality" between men and women in the same job/field.



What you be telling these women to make them so heated papi
laugh.gif


As mentioned, the topic of pay "inequality" always seems to get them in their emotions.

Example: I was having drinks with my homie and his girl a few weeks ago. We're discussing politics and joking about the self-destructing debacle of Hillary/Trump. His girl interjects about something she read online: women make 77 cents for every dollar men make. I ask her to explain; she literally just repeats that same line and says it's pure discrimination. I calmly explain to her that while the average wage for women is ~77% of the average wage of men, the difference is not likely a result of discrimination. I further elaborate that women are more likely to either temporarily or permanently drop out of the workforce. Also, women are more likely to work part-time and unsurprisingly, part-time employees overall make less than full-time employees. At this point, she's getting flustered. I continue to say that more women than men drop out of the labor force to take care of their kids, which is absolutely cool with me. I even put it out there that women without children tend to make a bit more than men without children (regardless of age). She's now heated and saying that it's not a woman's fault for leaving the workforce. I ask her, "So it's not a woman's choice to leave the workforce? Who forced her?" She yells that it's the children's fault for forcing mothers to quit their jobs. I'm pretty confused at this point, but she abruptly tells me that since this wage gap exists, women should be getting paid the difference by the government.



My homie is cracking up at this point (his fault for choosing to be with a self-proclaimed feminist and fan of Anita Sarkeesian), but I try to dig in a little deeper. I ask her, "If women are getting paid less, wouldn't companies hire women instead to work the same exact job, thereby increasing profit and minimizing costs?" She tells me she's offended I would even ask that and that discrimination is the only answer to this inequality. I send my homie a few links and articles that debunk this discrimination-based wage gap and he tells me she's not reading any of it. So much for being open-minded, huh?

laugh.gif
 


Famb you were rustling oye girl.
laugh.gif




-But she was wrong and you're wrong. She was right and you're right



The entire gap is not based on explainable factors (which economist generally gets labelled discrimination), but part of it is. It is well researched topic in Labor Economics, you could probably search on Google Scholar or NBER and find many papers on the gender pay gap. You gonna get real familiar with the oaxaca decomposition

I have read many articles showing that part of the wage gap is explainable, there is part of the gender wage gap that just can't be explain, at least by not any model out there right now.



That signals there is discrimination



-Secondly, you're "if women make less, why don't companies" just hired women is a nice troll job but I figure you're touching on this:

Women go cost women just much as men, and yes they choose to drop out the labor market (I'll touch on that). But during that time think about it, the company doesn't get any productivity from that worker, so in return he pays that women a lower wage to make up for it. Men don't drop out, so in turn they get a higher wage. I'm pretty sure this was what you were arguing to baby girl.



But



Women aren't just choosing to drop out the labor force on a whim. Taking care an child has large negative economic consequences, and currently America's social and economic is making women bare to many of those cost herself. Women should get paid maternity leave, so should men. Currently women have to stay home for weeks to months, yet men get looked at funny style for being out over a week. When you see both groups taking the same amount of time off after a baby, you will see the pay gap shrinking. Because their compensation structure will both change. Right now women generally have to drop out, while a man doesn't



Then



Now add to that the household division of labor is crazy unbalanced. Women put in way more time, and energy into raising a child and taking care of households (doing basic house work) than men do. This is time women aren't compensated for, time she could be in the labor market proving trading her time for more money, or investing in human capital that will lend to higher wages.



Then



Society (both men and older women) funnel our girls into lower paying careers, or act somewhat hostile to her entering a male dominated field. This **** starts from when like pre-algebra. Girls get told that being cute is just as important that being competent. So men and women might be in the same field, doing what is classified as the same job on a survey, but when you look closer the man's job is more specialized, and he can demand a higher wage



-So let's review. Women have pushed to make choices that will negatively affect them economically, men don't, and add to that women put in tons of work that goes uncompensated. Work that benefits other men, and society as a whole



It will take a combination of public policy, and men making different decision in the workplace, and them doing more work to take care and raise kids. Add women making different choices. But society is still on the hook for part of the problem It is all about trade offs. And someone the person saying it is all about discrimination, is missing the other half of the picture. So it the dude saying it discrimination doesn't pay a factor, or it is just women's choices that are lending to her lower pay.



I know you be getting wavy with liberation way of thinking and that people's choices explain everything. I dipped my toes into those waters at one point in life. But the most dangerous thing about that way of thinking is that it ignores the socio-economic systems driving outcomes we see in society



-And to be honest, you come off just as bad in your story as ole girl does.
all this is a good breakdown of why women get paid less and it is a societal "problem" but none of the green highlighted text does anything to suggest that it's employer discrimination. It seem's like you're supporting his point that the girl saying "it must be discrimination!!!" is talking nonsense because you just listed a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with the employer to why women get paid less on average.


the only time you bring up discrimination is on what can't be explained, which is a pretty weak argument seeing that you followed it up by doing a great job of providing a thorough explanation of all the non employer discrimination factors that lead to this statistic. 

-The second point (the green part) was not meant to explain discrimination. It was meant to explain some of the known factors why you will see women having lower wages. Just discussing the systems the produce those outcomes.


-Ole girl was arguing that her opinion is fact, Slighted was arguing no his was fact. I didn't say definitively that employer discrimination exist. I said it signals it does, not that it proves it.


Maybe it from me doing econometric work in the Labor market, but most papers to Oaxaca style decomposition, that is how it is discussed. Peoplehave tried to explain the differential in all sorts of ways, and there still remain some part of the wage differential no one can't explain.


So there must be some unobservable things going on that is causing that, and the most likely thing could be discrimination, it could be other things, or things no one had found yet.


But discrimination is used because it kinda fits, we can't measure the feelings in someone's heart, and thoughts in here head. We will never know, and the fact researchers have tried many things and some of the gap is still there, might be because there is truly something partly driving the wage differential see will never be able to observe.


And the best guess is discrimination because it makes the most sense. It was not an argument for anything really, just to point out to Slighted the case isn't closed like he claims
but in the argument with the girl, he was the one coming from a logical and factual standpoint (not saying that his argument is 100% on point) while the girl was just acting ignorant. 

in his story and example, he came with the stronger argument and she looked like a fool.

It's always going to be somewhere in the middle, of course there is going to be some discrimination out there from specific employers, but from your own breakdown of society and slighted's points it doesn't seem like discrimination is the main reason behind this statistic.

in arguments like this I usually assume that neither party is talking in absolutes because if they are then regardless of topic they are probably both wrong 
Ok, and?

Yes most of the wage gap is explainable, and we must address that. But some probably is not, and we must address that.

I didn't write that post to defend the girl, all I point out is the could be some truth to her something she said. Plus I said they both come off bad in the story.

I just wrote the post to politely enlighten Slighted on something he might not be consider. Not to pick sides.

So I have no idea what you want from me famb, to say Slighted comes of better in a story he gave?
I still dont see how he came off bad in the story at all

she came with pure ignorance and he corrected her as one should when dealing with ignorant individuals. 

it's exactly how you deal with people in the trump thread. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most of my experiences with left-leaning feminist women always ended with ad-hoc personal attacks against me, even after I presented logical, rational ideas in a calm discussion.

They were quick to shame me and call me a sexist/misogynist for disagreeing with them and giving legitimate explanations. For example, one topic that constantly gets them heated is the pay "inequality" between men and women in the same job/field.





What you be telling these women to make them so heated papi :lol:




As mentioned, the topic of pay "inequality" always seems to get them in their emotions.

Example: I was having drinks with my homie and his girl a few weeks ago. We're discussing politics and joking about the self-destructing debacle of Hillary/Trump. His girl interjects about something she read online: women make 77 cents for every dollar men make. I ask her to explain; she literally just repeats that same line and says it's pure discrimination. I calmly explain to her that while the average wage for women is ~77% of the average wage of men, the difference is not likely a result of discrimination. I further elaborate that women are more likely to either temporarily or permanently drop out of the workforce. Also, women are more likely to work part-time and unsurprisingly, part-time employees overall make less than full-time employees. At this point, she's getting flustered. I continue to say that more women than men drop out of the labor force to take care of their kids, which is absolutely cool with me. I even put it out there that women without children tend to make a bit more than men without children (regardless of age). She's now heated and saying that it's not a woman's fault for leaving the workforce. I ask her, "So it's not a woman's choice to leave the workforce? Who forced her?" She yells that it's the children's fault for forcing mothers to quit their jobs. I'm pretty confused at this point, but she abruptly tells me that since this wage gap exists, women should be getting paid the difference by the government.




My homie is cracking up at this point (his fault for choosing to be with a self-proclaimed feminist and fan of Anita Sarkeesian), but I try to dig in a little deeper. I ask her, "If women are getting paid less, wouldn't companies hire women instead to work the same exact job, thereby increasing profit and minimizing costs?" She tells me she's offended I would even ask that and that discrimination is the only answer to this inequality. I send my homie a few links and articles that debunk this discrimination-based wage gap and he tells me she's not reading any of it. So much for being open-minded, huh?

:lol:  




Famb you were rustling oye girl. :lol:




-But she was wrong and you're wrong. She was right and you're right




The entire gap is not based on explainable factors (which economist generally gets labelled discrimination), but part of it is. It is well researched topic in Labor Economics, you could probably search on Google Scholar or NBER and find many papers on the gender pay gap. You gonna get real familiar with the oaxaca decomposition

I have read many articles showing that part of the wage gap is explainable, there is part of the gender wage gap that just can't be explain, at least by not any model out there right now.




That signals there is discrimination





-Secondly, you're "if women make less, why don't companies" just hired women is a nice troll job but I figure you're touching on this:

Women go cost women just much as men, and yes they choose to drop out the labor market (I'll touch on that). But during that time think about it, the company doesn't get any productivity from that worker, so in return he pays that women a lower wage to make up for it. Men don't drop out, so in turn they get a higher wage. I'm pretty sure this was what you were arguing to baby girl.




But




Women aren't just choosing to drop out the labor force on a whim. Taking care an child has large negative economic consequences, and currently America's social and economic is making women bare to many of those cost herself. Women should get paid maternity leave, so should men. Currently women have to stay home for weeks to months, yet men get looked at funny style for being out over a week. When you see both groups taking the same amount of time off after a baby, you will see the pay gap shrinking. Because their compensation structure will both change. Right now women generally have to drop out, while a man doesn't




Then




Now add to that the household division of labor is crazy unbalanced. Women put in way more time, and energy into raising a child and taking care of households (doing basic house work) than men do. This is time women aren't compensated for, time she could be in the labor market proving trading her time for more money, or investing in human capital that will lend to higher wages.




Then




Society (both men and older women) funnel our girls into lower paying careers, or act somewhat hostile to her entering a male dominated field. This **** starts from when like pre-algebra. Girls get told that being cute is just as important that being competent. So men and women might be in the same field, doing what is classified as the same job on a survey, but when you look closer the man's job is more specialized, and he can demand a higher wage




-So let's review. Women have pushed to make choices that will negatively affect them economically, men don't, and add to that women put in tons of work that goes uncompensated. Work that benefits other men, and society as a whole




It will take a combination of public policy, and men making different decision in the workplace, and them doing more work to take care and raise kids. Add women making different choices. But society is still on the hook for part of the problem It is all about trade offs. And someone the person saying it is all about discrimination, is missing the other half of the picture. So it the dude saying it discrimination doesn't pay a factor, or it is just women's choices that are lending to her lower pay.




I know you be getting wavy with liberation way of thinking and that people's choices explain everything. I dipped my toes into those waters at one point in life. But the most dangerous thing about that way of thinking is that it ignores the socio-economic systems driving outcomes we see in society





-And to be honest, you come off just as bad in your story as ole girl does.
all this is a good breakdown of why women get paid less and it is a societal "problem" but none of the green highlighted text does anything to suggest that it's employer discrimination. It seem's like you're supporting his point that the girl saying "it must be discrimination!!!" is talking nonsense because you just listed a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with the employer to why women get paid less on average.



the only time you bring up discrimination is on what can't be explained, which is a pretty weak argument seeing that you followed it up by doing a great job of providing a thorough explanation of all the non employer discrimination factors that lead to this statistic. 



-The second point (the green part) was not meant to explain discrimination. It was meant to explain some of the known factors why you will see women having lower wages. Just discussing the systems the produce those outcomes.



-Ole girl was arguing that her opinion is fact, Slighted was arguing no his was fact. I didn't say definitively that employer discrimination exist. I said it signals it does, not that it proves it.



Maybe it from me doing econometric work in the Labor market, but most papers to Oaxaca style decomposition, that is how it is discussed. Peoplehave tried to explain the differential in all sorts of ways, and there still remain some part of the wage differential no one can't explain.



So there must be some unobservable things going on that is causing that, and the most likely thing could be discrimination, it could be other things, or things no one had found yet.



But discrimination is used because it kinda fits, we can't measure the feelings in someone's heart, and thoughts in here head. We will never know, and the fact researchers have tried many things and some of the gap is still there, might be because there is truly something partly driving the wage differential see will never be able to observe.



And the best guess is discrimination because it makes the most sense. It was not an argument for anything really, just to point out to Slighted the case isn't closed like he claims
but in the argument with the girl, he was the one coming from a logical and factual standpoint (not saying that his argument is 100% on point) while the girl was just acting ignorant. 


in his story and example, he came with the stronger argument and she looked like a fool.

It's always going to be somewhere in the middle, of course there is going to be some discrimination out there from specific employers, but from your own breakdown of society and slighted's points it doesn't seem like discrimination is the main reason behind this statistic.


in arguments like this I usually assume that neither party is talking in absolutes because if they are then regardless of topic they are probably both wrong 


Ok, and?


Yes most of the wage gap is explainable, and we must address that. But some probably is not, and we must address that.


I didn't write that post to defend the girl, all I point out is the could be some truth to her something she said. Plus I said they both come off bad in the story.


I just wrote the post to politely enlighten Slighted on something he might not be consider. Not to pick sides.


So I have no idea what you want from me famb, to say Slighted comes of better in a story he gave?
I still dont see how he came off bad in the story at all

she came with pure ignorance and he corrected her as one should when dealing with ignorant individuals. 

it's exactly how you deal with people in the trump thread. 

Ok famb, we disagree on how he came off.

Lets just leave it at that then
 
Last edited:
To be fair, she and I have had very civil, peaceful discussions about similar topics in the past. I've always believed that the best way to learn is to get different perspectives.

I'm not defending her, but I don't think she was ignorant; she just literally, in her own words, read that headline on Reddit and based that as her only talking point. As I noted above, I was confused with her responses, offered up some talking points, and she reacted as such.

Maybe we both came off bad, but at this point, it's irrelevant as I'll be the best man at their wedding.

laugh.gif
 
Last edited:
I would say that even though she may have just been going off a headline like he's saying I would still not call her views ignorant because she is a woman that has been living and brought up in a sexist society so her life experiences would still have a good amount of insight on why she sees it that way.
 
 
I would say that even though she may have just been going off a headline like he's saying I would still not call her views ignorant because she is a woman that has been living and brought up in a sexist society so her life experiences would still have a good amount of insight on why she sees it that way.
you can be right about something and still ignorant 

IMO if you are not able to elaborate and clearly express your ideas with supporting arguments you come across as ignorant 

going by the story, if she would have brought up an anecdotal example then things would be different but if she just continued to bring up that one statistic without providing anything else then that's just plain ignorance. 

even if you know something or have an idea, if you cant effectively express that idea then it's pretty much meaningless
 
I see where you are coming from I just wouldn't consider that ignorance because ignorance means lacking knowledge if anything she was just poor at communicating her knowledge or ideas on these issues not lacking it.
 
but if she never communicates it why would one assume she does in fact possess this knowledge? 

and looking at the argument itself, she may not be ignorant but she had an ignorant argument. 
 
I assume she possess that knowledge because like I said before she is a women living in a sexist society and more than likely knows how to recognize sexism society. The same way a black person or other minority persons more than likely can recognize racism in society and a gay person can recognize homophobia in society. A person in a disparaged group I would say more than likely be able to recognize discrimination that affects their group because they live lives affected by it. Thats why I assume she has the knowledge and she just may be poor at communicating it.
 
feeling the effects of something is different than having the knowledge.

if you cant explain it, you're ignorant. 

and if you're struggling to explain something go learn more about it before you attempt to argue about it. That way you dont come across as ignorant. 

Way too many people try to get by life with "this is the way it should be because I want it to be this way" logic rather than "this is the way it should be because of reasons X, Y and Z". 
 
Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree cause I do believe feeling the effects of something and experiencing it does give you knowledge (now if the person accepts it or ignores is a different story in different situations) 

And again we will have to agree to disagree because not explaining it well does not make a person ignorant they just aren't good communicator at the most which some people are not good at.
 
Last edited:
it gives you surface level knowledge, but for most people they are still ignorant to the causes behind the effects which is where the ignorance comes into play

all our internal thoughts make use of our dominant language, when we break something down and think to ourselves we use the same language we use to speak with. Not being able to explain something in the very language you think to yourself with shows lack of knowledge and lack of knowledge is quite literally ignorance. Of course this ignores thing's like social anxiety which I assume in this context is not relevant. 
 
I understand where you're coming from with the surface level knowledge thing that makes sense and to further that point would just be arguing semantics on the use of the word and how much knowledge is needed for someone to not be ignorant.

But what you are forgetting is what else can affect someones ability to communicate and that is emotions which is relevant to this context. If someone is emotional about something because it directly affects their life I would not call them ignorant because their emotions got the best of them they where just being human and I can hold that agains them. For example its like me when discussing racism with people. I very much understand how racism works on a micro scale and a large societal scale and I've never had trouble communicating my feelings on it but if I'm talking to someone about racism who isn't trying to take the time to understand and is just being a contrarian for the sake of it my emotions might get the best of me. now in that scenario was I ignorant, did i suddenly have no knowledge of what i was talking about? No thats just a human thing that people do when discussing things that affects peoples lives especially when those things are discrimination.
 
Last edited:
yeah I agree, I was talking about someone who under no circumstance is able to properly communicate his/her ideas. It's perfectly understandable to get emotional if talking to someone who is making no effort to understand where you're coming from but there are also some people who speak purely with emotions 100% of the time and never come at an argument with any logic. 

A lot of people use emotion to coverup the fact that they actually dont really know what they are talking about. 
 
CoD lobbies used to be like virtual Trump rallies :lol:

They're toxic places and even more so for females
 
I've had some australian dudes make 9/11 and dumb american jokes at me for like 15 minutes before I told them I was canadian 
 
Back
Top Bottom