ObjectivityIncarnate

That’s because you’re a textbook example of the infantile minds infecting areas where actual discourse has a chance to happen.

(emphasis added)

Men aren’t allowed to discuss their feelings because men have created a society that looks at them as losers for doing so.

The implication here, that societal norms are created and maintained by only men, and therefore any aspects of it that affect men negatively deserve to be blamed on them, is one of the most pervasive anti-male sentiments that people try to fly under the radar with. Women have at least as much (arguably more) influence on societal norms and conventions, as men do.

This entire comment is teeming with this undertone; that is, until the end, when they come out and just say ‘all the bad stuff is men’s fault’ at the end, lol.

Everyone loves building strawmen. If you think only “they” do it, it’s because you’re unquestioningly accepting the ones that confirm your biases.

I’m not convinced Donald Trump has any actual political positions. He’s more concerned with himself and his own ego than anything else. Didn’t he generally express Democrat/left views for decades up until shortly before he decided to run for office?

I have no doubt he’d happily say anything, if he thought it’d improve his chances at ‘winning’.

1000%. To me it feels like 99 times out of 100 it’s a complete waste of time to not only figure out what collectivist labels one is using, but then getting them to define that label, because not everyone uses the same term the same way, etc. etc.

That time and energy could be spent discussing the actual topic at hand. I’ve ‘debated’ abortion with a friend who is very against it, but labels herself as progressive/leftist. Is it really worth the effort trying to unravel the apparent contradiction? What purpose would that actually serve, in the end? The topic at the time was abortion, so really, the only relevant fact about one politically at that time is what one’s stance on that particular topic is, and why it is what it is.

This excessive and ever-more-granulated labeling is a waste of time at best, and an artifically-created wedge that drives people apart who are actually in agreement, at worst.

The vast majority of so-called centrists are people who just don’t like stress of having a hard stance.

No, that’s a bullshit definition imposed by nuance-allergic ‘either you’re with us or you’re against us’ ideologues. Someone who consistently avoids taking an explicit stance on issues is not a centrist. Fence-sitting is not centrism–they’re only “so-called centrists” because ignorant people like you label them that.

A centrist is someone whose collective of views/stances is such that it would not really be accurate to label them with “left” or “right”. Furthermore, people like you also, in my experience, don’t seem to realize that, for example, “left-leaning” and “right-leaning” are in fact subcategories of “centrist”–the “lean” describes the direction that the majority (but not all) of their positions go.

The irony is that a lot more people can be accurately described as “centrist” than actually self-identify (or are accurately identified by others) as such (partially thanks to people like you constantly using the term incorrectly), while the hardline ideologues of both wings arguably hate ‘people who agree with them more than they disagree, but won’t go as far as they do’, more than they do the ones at the opposite end of the political spectrum, and call them “centrists”, instead of the ones for whom the definition actually applies!

deleted by creator

no, it isn’t

“When the BLS reports that women working full-time in 2020 earned 82.3% of what men earned working full-time, that is very much different from saying that women earned 82.3% of what men earned for doing exactly the same work while working the exact same number of hours in the same occupation, with exactly the same educational background and exactly the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and with exactly the same marital and family (e.g., number of children) status…once we start controlling individually for the many relevant factors that affect earnings, e.g., hours worked, age, marital status, and having children, most of the raw earnings differential disappears.”

Done with your ignorant “nuh uh” garbage. Go ahead and cling to your misogyny boogeyman, you’re clearly more interested in maintaining your own assumptions and biases, than the truth. This nonsense is literally equivalent to the creationist “god of the gaps” fallacious argument, where any empty spot in the evolutionary record is assumed by the creationist to be ‘God did it, right there’. Then, whenever we find a transitional fossil Z between X and Y, suddenly God’s role is no longer between X and Y, but between X and Z, and Z and Y, ad infinitum.

The bottom line is that there is literally zero evidence that any statistically-significant portion of the gap between the sexes’ average early earnings IS caused by sexism. This is just something people like you assume, because you’re too simple-minded to consider that a difference in outcome between two demographics could be caused by anything but bigotry toward one of them. And it’s another level of simple-mindedness to continue to cling to that assumption even after you’ve been made aware of well over a dozen factors that account for various chunks of the gap, making it clear that ‘turns out there can in fact be other reasons for this disparity to exist’. The misogyny ‘God’ in that ever-shrinking gap–the straw you cling to constantly shortening. Ideologue narrative-clinging is pitiable.

I’m not going to entertain your “prove it’s not” nonsense, that’s not how it works. Enjoy your delusional boogeyman hunt, I guess.

P.S. Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality? Like Saudi Arabia, where women only recently became legally allowed to drive, and Egypt, which has the second highest rate of sexual harassment on Earth. Whoops, another massive wrench in your delusional assumption, how about that?

no there’s still a gap per-hour for the same work

The remaining gap is smaller than the margin of error, once you account for every known factor. For example, a man and woman might both have the same job title at the same company, but if the man was working there for a longer period of time, or opts to work more overtime, etc. etc., then naturally he’s going to get paid more “for the same work”. But about that phrase:

You should understand that, primarily because it’d be absurdly impractical otherwise (no one is going to be examining the individual daily acts of all these people at their jobs), whenever research in this area talks about “same work”, they always mean the same job title. So already, that’s leaving a lot on the table, of which I gave two examples above (experience and amount of hours/overtime worked).

Fields dominated by men happen to pay more? Why?

You have cause and effect backwards. The fields pay more first, then men are shown to gravitate more toward them. This is partly because men tend to be more likely to prioritize raw earning potential over everything else, versus women, who are more likely to prioritize other things, such as time flexibility/convenience (check out the man/woman ratio of graveyard shift jobs for an eye-opener), commute time, etc. And part of the reason for that is the social pressure for men to be ‘the provider’, which may have lessened in recent decades, but is definitely still a factor to a degree.

Another big factor is that, as men are more likely to prefer ‘working with things’, and women are more likely to prefer ‘working with people’, the inescapable fact that ‘things’ scale up to a degree of magnitude that ‘people’ never can, means that the industries that men already tend to favor (STEM), will also be the ones that can scale up and pay more as a result of that. An engineer could be able to manage 1 system now, but be able to manage 10 in the future with technological advances, but even the best nurse on the planet is never going to be able to care for orders of magnitude more people than they can presently.

Why are men socially in a position where they can choose these higher risk occupations?

This is a loaded question. Men aren’t any more “socially in a position” to do so than women. Women are completely free to choose these occupations. But by and large, they simply don’t. The difference in priority I described above is why. Left to make a free choice, men are simply more likely to risk their safety and lives for a bigger paycheck, than women are.

Construction, oil field workers, logging all seem to have a pretty bad reputation for hostile work environments for women, no?

Okay, really now, let’s not pretend there are these throngs of women clamoring to be ‘let in’ to the roofing industry, or the oil fields, and only aren’t working in those fields because of the misogyny of the existing workforce. Please, let’s return to reality here.

Why are men more often in positions where this is possible? What gender difference could there possibly be that could make this the case? What sexual dimorphism has led to this difference? What social expectations have we placed upon women that would lead to this? Personally I haven’t a clue.

Again, it’s choice, not a difference in opportunity. I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on that. Left to their own devices, and given full freedom to choose their professional paths, men and women, by and large, do NOT make the same decisions. In fact, the data has shown that the more egalitarian a society is re sex equality, the more pronounced those differences become (for example, the male skew in engineering tilts harder toward male, and the female skew in nursing tilts harder toward female). This is the opposite of what those who did this research expected to discover, such that it’s literally called the “gender equality paradox”.

Why would higher risks lead to a higher median salary?

Because if you have two jobs that have equivalent pay and prerequisites, but one is more dangerous than the other, no one will choose it over the safer option, obviously. You have to pay more for dangerous jobs, or no one will do them, unless they literally have no other choice.

9 . Why?

This is the ‘working with things’ vs. ‘working with people’ general preference difference between men and women, in action.

Why are men more able to relocate than women?

Once more, you’re twisting things. Point 17 doesn’t say men are more ABLE, it says they’re more WILLING. Difference.

He seems to be on board by the last panel, lol

Like maybe some of these bullet points aren’t so much counter arguments as _exactly the kind of thing we should be targeting

What are you targeting, exactly? The ability of women to choose? Because that’s the only way you’re going to equalize the kind of things you mentioned right before that quote–by giving them as little choice in the matter as men have.

If you compare men to childless, never-married women, the gap essentially vanishes. Women who choose to be less ‘all in’ professionally bring the female average down. You can’t fault employers for favoring and paying more to workers who have more continuous experience etc.

Why is it culturally acceptable that women should do all a disproportionate amount of household chores?

There are no ‘culture police’ coming around to enforce this. This is decided individually within each relationship. And women are more than capable of leaving men who are not willing to do whatever share of those tasks (up to and including 100%) they want their partner to be doing.

Why is teaching so low paid now?

I suspect it’s similar to the reason vets are very underpaid compared to other medical professions: being passionate about helping kids/animals opens one up to be easier to take advantage of, re wages. In other words, you love animals so you’re willing to be paid less than you might deserve, in order to do the job you want to do.

That said, plenty of teachers are paid quite well, there are a lot of factors that determine whether a given teacher gets what we’d generally consider a ‘good’ wage.

Why is software engineering more highly paid.

Because it scales much more, especially as technology advances. Even the best nurse on Earth, for example, can only care for so many human beings in one day. But a piece of good software can serve millions, maybe billions of people. And a millions of people paying you one cent each will enrich you much more than 10 people paying that ‘ultimate nurse’ a large sum each.

It’s a fact of the matter that STEM scales up in ways that fields like teaching and nursing simply can’t. That’s not misogyny, that’s just reality. Another fact of the matter is that the skew toward men in engineering, for example, and the skew toward women in nursing, as an opposite example, are HIGHEST in the countries with the best gender equality laws/culture. Fact is, men and women tend to choose different careers in aggregate, when given the agency to choose. Read up on the Nordic Gender Equality Paradox to learn more.

Too much is being blamed on some sinister big plot by The Men to keep The Women down. There is no such barrier in the Western world in 2024.

All it is is a joke based on the assumption that women are paid less for the same work/job as men. What do you see in it beyond that?

https://64.media.tumblr.com/a40772953772eb97fe029c113830c178/tumblr_okz4dl6RAH1tcrpblo1_1280.png

The Hay group analyzed 8.7 million employees across 33 countries, the above being on page 8 of their methodology report (which I unfortunately don’t have a current link to, since it looks like their website structure changed since I last checked it out, I was only able to find the white paper), to find the real figures behind the ‘headline’ gender pay gap that crudely takes the average of all working women’s salaries and compares it to the average of all working men’s salaries, with no context.

The rightmost column shows the pay gap that remains when you compare only men and women working in the same company, at the same level, with the same title. A 1.6% average gap that takes into account NONE of the 20 bullet points in my previous comment. That’s the starting point. Even if we assumed ALL of that gap was caused by sexism, a 1.6% difference isn’t exactly the Colossus of Misogyny that’s been assumed to exist.

Though this is all actually an attempt to ‘prove the negative’. As I mentioned before, this is a God of the Gaps argument on the part of people who see this earnings gap between the sexes and assume sexism is the one and only cause of all of it. It’s on the people pushing that narrative to show evidence of that, not to just claim that any unaccounted for gap is to be assumed to be caused by sexism.

even if everything in there was true, this would still be a systemic problem

Of which no one can responsibly say anything beyond “a nonzero amount of sexism exists”. Which it obviously does (and in both directions, of course–even I personally have gotten the short end of the stick more than once for being the only male in my department), there will never be literally zero bigotry, sex-related or otherwise. But there is no evidence that there is enough sexism to create an average difference between the sexes large enough to measure, when all known factors for average earnings differences are taken into account (and there are certainly still more non-sex-related factors that we don’t know about and haven’t accounted for yet).

This means two things:

1. One can’t intellectually honestly say that sexism is a significant barrier to professional women (in the US, at least, all the stuff I’ve looked into is US-centric), given that the impact of sexism is literally too small to measure.
2. There is no “systemic”/top-down solution to the nonzero amount of sexism that is out there. The best to reasonably expect is that we identify and rectify cases of sexism (along with any other kind of unfair discrimination, of course) on the spot as they’re discovered.

Me: corrects a common misconception
You: You’re a big pussy

Okay lol, you’re definitely not large mad.

Time to dig this back up again, I guess:

There literally is no gender “wage gap”. Firstly, the “wage gap” is a misnomer for the “earnings gap” (using the correct term makes it more clear that the difference is in average overall earning, not in the pay received per hour of the same work), and assuming whatever gap there is is caused by sexism is literally the same logic as the creationist’s ‘god of the gaps’ argument re the fossil record; with that argument, creationists say X couldn’t possibly have evolved into Y, that God was involved. Then when a transitional fossil Z between X and Y is found, the creationist says that God’s influence must actually be between X and Z, and Z and Y. And so on ad infinitum, creating a situation where the creationist will always find a way to convince themselves that they’re correct, despite the ever-increasing amount of evidence against them.

When it comes to the earnings gap, the actual gap that exists, the cause is assumed to be sexism/misogyny in the same way God is assumed to be how different species came about. But then as time goes on, research is done, and more and more of the gap is accounted for via factors that have nothing to do with discrimination/prejudice/etc., the argument changes to 'whatever gap remains unaccounted for, that must be the part caused by sexism/misogyny!"

That portion being due to sexism/misogyny is always based on pure assumption–there is zero hard evidence that instances of sexism (no one argues there is zero of it) comprise a statistically-significant portion (no one being intellectually honest would argue it’s literally zero) of the earnings gap between men and women.

For anyone curious, here’s a list of factors that contribute to the gender earnings gap, from the above link:

1. Men disproportionately gravitate towards higher paying occupations in technology and hard sciences (e.g., petroleum engineer).
2. Men disproportionately choose higher-risk, higher paying occupations with greater safety risks for occupational injuries and fatalities (e.g., oil field worker, roofer, and logging).
3. Men are more willing to work outdoors in uncomfortable, physically demanding work environments (construction, oil field workers, commercial fishing, logging).
4. Men are more willing than women to choose demanding, intense jobs where you can’t check out at the end of the work day (e.g., corporate attorney, senior White House staff).
5. Men select jobs with higher pay but with lower personal fulfillment (tax accountant).
6. Men select jobs with higher financial and emotional risks (e.g., venture capitalist).
7. Men are more willing than women to work the worst shifts during the worst hours.
8. Men often choose higher paying subfields (e.g., surgery and anesthesiology). <-- the primary reason for the misconception your oft-repeated joke is based on
9. Men are more willing to work in dirty or unpleasant environments with minimal human contact (e.g., prison guard, steel worker, truck drivers).
10. Men work longer hours per week than women on average.
11. Men more frequently than women invest in updating their skills with greater financial payoffs (e.g., master’s degree in computer technology vs. master’s degree in education).
12. Men are more likely than women to have more years of continuous experience in their current occupation.
13. Men are more likely than women to have more years of recent, uninterrupted experience with their current employer.
14. Men work more weeks during the year than women, on average.
15. Men are less likely than women to be absent from work (e.g., doctor’s visits, sick days, taking time off when children are sick, etc.).
16. Men are more willing than women to tolerate longer commute times.
17. Men are more willing to relocate, especially to undesirable locations at their company’s request.
18. Men are more willing than women, on average, to travel extensively on the job.
19. Men are more willing than women to take the risk of a variable income, e.g., to be paid by commission vs. a fixed salary.
20. Men often produce more output, e.g., scholarly research articles for university professors.

Note: None of those gaps above apply universally, but reflect overall gender differences that apply in general and on average.

you trying to defend an indefensible point of view

The fact that “living wage” has yet to be defined by its proponents in a meaningful and concrete way, such that it could realistically even be proposed as a policy, is not even a “point of view”. That’s just a fact.

I simply refuse to even acknowledge your demented talking points because

Please, we both know the real reason. If what I was saying was so clearly false, you’d expose its fallacy instead of making these ridiculous excuses.

You have to understand that nobody gives a shit about you licking the boots of rich assholes.

Stating facts isn’t bootlicking, no matter how much you pretend it is.

But hey, I’ve been wrong before.

It’s seeming more and more like it’s an especially fond hobby of yours.

You think people living on the brink of starvation are funny?

Do you have a genuine reading comprehension impairment?

What I found funny was, obviously, the irony of the unoriginal and mindlessly parroted “living wage” talking point being the place where someone accuses me of not having original thoughts.

Do you have a single original thought in your head

This is so, so funny, in a thread about the ever-nebulous “living wage”, lmao

Because I shared a couple of facts that are in common with leading economics experts, and pointed out how empty the logic of other things were?

Talk about having low standards.