Jump to content
The Corroboree
Halcyon Daze

Top 5 reasons why I Hate women

Recommended Posts

You don't think a woman who has been battered or raped by a man has feelings of being pathetic or useless? You need to get off the wikis and do some real thinking and real research before you make claims like this. Any given human being is likely to feel that kind of emotional response to being a victim of violent crime. It's all over the literature. That you see women as weak and don't register any problem with that prejudice clearly marks you a misogynist.

 

What the fuck? That isn't what I said at all and you know it. Go back and read what I wrote and then make your point.

This discussion has moved on from an interesting debate into childish name-calling. I'm out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that in our culture men aren't "allowed" to be victims - or this makes them weak, useless, pathetic. Whereas, women are considered natural victims, yet somehow this isn't allowed to make them pathetic or useless (but weak, yes, and that's fine). It's all about perception.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it hasn't degenerated into childish name calling.. But it did degenerate into moral equivocation long ago.. But I suppose the title of the thread

is "Top 5 reasons why I hate women" .. Maybe there should be a "Top 5 reasons why I hate men" thread too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

raketemensch is just being a troll and not really listening to anyone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one interpretation (and there are worse) of what appears to have occurred here which resembels an adult debating a child.or one person utilising reason in their relation with another who subscribes to religious beliefs and dogma.in other words the "true believer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread hasn't been going anywhere for pages, it's just been you and whitewind venting frustrations.

 

I may have vented frustrations from time to time, but I'm more interested in having a rational discussion about the issues. That is seeming to be increasingly difficult.

Once again, I have used statistics in my posts to show the futility of throwing them around a forum discussion, not because I'm happy to use them for my own purposes, but as a response to your insistence on them. I showed you that for every statistic you could produce showing that women have it better than men, I could present you with one "proving" the opposite.

 

I'm aware of why you posted the those stats. It is along the line of "for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD", which is the way lawyers describe the fact that any good attorney can find a specialist who will testify to agree with their side. But in order to make this point well, you would need to provide data that in not consistent with what I am saying. You don't seem to understand that. I even put it in bold in one of my posts, but you have not addressed it. Here it is again: both sets of data are consistent with my position, but only the set you provided is consistent with yours. This means that you completely didn't prove your point. In order to prove your point, you need to find data that is inconsistent with my position. You haven't done that.

I have already given you some reasons for the gap between wages for men and women being to do with gender. It is part of a complex of workplace discrimination that includes men holding more positions of power, sexual harassment being primarily against women in the workplace, etc. etc.

 

And I've asked you to provide evidence for this.

Lifestyle choices will affect your wage due to factors other than gender, too, but they don't explain why there is a gap in wages specifically demarcated along the lines of sex, one which has a well documented history of being fought against by feminists.

 

Actually, it is pretty clear that lifestyle choices do depend on gender, for whatever reason. Whether it's biological, or societal conditioning, women and men, on average, make different choices. If you can agree that lifestyle choices affect wage, then it's not too much of a stretch to see that gender may affect wage through lifestyle choice rather than by discrimination from employers.

You know that we have plenty of sources on wage discrimination if that's what this debate is about now. The problem I have with statistics, as I've said, is that throwing up a bar graph as a proof is way too reductive. We have posted a few graphs but no meta-analysis of these huge surveys. What about other factors in work experience?

 

Exactly my point. There are many other factors involved. I'm not claiming that never married childless women earn more than their male counterparts due to discrimination against men. I'm using that data to show that the 75c on the dollar figure is nonsense because you control for two factors, marriage and children, and the gap reverses. This suggests to me that it is those choices, and not discrimination, that is causing differences in the wages.

Now, I realise that when small sample sizes are used, you end up with conflicting results, and meta-analyses are required to work out what the actual results are for a larger sample. This happens which drug trials where a 12 patient study will find a drug to be no better than placebo, and a 20 patient study will find better than placebo. You can collate that data and work out what the actual efficacy of the drug is. But we're not talking about a small survey, nor have you shown me any data that conflicts with the data I provided, nor have you given any specific reasons as to why you think the data I posted may be flawed.

A good theory should agree with all data. If you cannot fit all data to the theory, then either your data is flawed, or your theory is flawed. When you're looking at raw census data, that is a pretty big sample that you're looking at, and it's difficult to see where things can go wrong, so unless you can give me a reason as to why the data does not fit your theory, then you will not convince me that your theory is accurate.

What do you mean "no meta-analysis of these huge surveys"? It's the smaller ones that need meta-analysis. Here you have a huge survey, with very clear data. There are not many controls, so you cannot conclude from the data I posted that men are paid less than women for the same work (and that is not my contention anyway). All you can conclude is that the data that says that women get paid less than men is bunk, because it changes drastically by controlling for even a couple of variable that involve choices made by women and men.

Alison Booth of ANU demonstrates that

 

One of the reasons I was posting very simplistic data is that it is a good starting point for a discussion, whereas deconstructing a huge research article or discussion paper is something that I didn't think anyone would bother with, so I thought post the bare minimum, and people can try to offer explanations. I find it odd that you are unwilling to address the results of a very simple survey (whose results should be accurate because of the large sample size) yet you post a very complicated discussion paper that I am then expected to address. But here goes:

"Alison Booth of ANU demonastrates that..." a small component of the gender wage gap is due to choices that women make in the marketplace that are probably not innate and are mostly due to sociological factors. That is basically the findings in a nutshell. Although there is some discussion of the possibilities of discrimination, discrimination is not one of her findings. So what is your point in posting this? Even in the bit you quoted, she put "discrimination" in quotes and said that this differential is "often interpreted as discrimination". How on earth does this article in any way support your contention that the gender wage gap is due to discrimination?

Being a discussion paper, you can't assume that everything discussed in the paper are actual findings of the original research, so the most important parts of the paper to actually work out what was found are the abstract and the conclusion. I found the abstract to be rather vague, but here is the conclusion in its entirety:

It is certainly the case that studies using survey-based psychological variables, as well as studies

using data generated from laboratory experiments, do find gender differences in competitive

behaviour and risk-taking. These could feed into explaining gender pay gaps and glass ceilings.

Moreover, the most recent experimental evidence indicates that these gender differences in

psychological variables are not necessarily innate, a finding that would be hard, if not

impossible, to show using survey-based evidence alone.

It is clear that these distinct empirical approaches – involving survey-based data on the

one hand and data from laboratory or field experiments on the other hand – can enrich our

understanding of gender differences in behavioural outcomes. Combining the insights from each

methodology, we now know that some small part of the gender pay gaps and glass ceilings may

be due to psychological differences between men and women. However these differences cannot

be considered innate. They can be shaped by the environment in which individuals are placed. 25

The title of this talk was ‘gender and competition’. While the competitive behaviour

investigated in the recent economics experiments relates at face value to the supply-side of the

labour market, it could also feed through to the demand side. Whether or not it transfers into the

largely male corridors of power and into the demand-side of the economy is a largely

unresearched area.

The insights from other disciplines about the formation of nepotistic or homosocial

preferences, gender identity and role incongruity would seem to offer labour economists a

potentially rewarding way forward. And for those who are interested in understanding how we

arrived at this point, so too do the political economy approaches as exemplified in the studies by,

inter alia, John Stuart Mill (1869), Lizzeri and Persico (2004) and Doepke and Tertilt (2008).

There remains much work to be done by labour economists in exploring the ways in which

gender plays out in the labour market.

 

In fact, the discussion paper is almost entirely about 'choices', or more accurately behavioural characteristics of women from different background, and how this affects their likelihood of getting higher-paying, or higher ranked, positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that in our culture men aren't "allowed" to be victims - or this makes them weak, useless, pathetic. Whereas, women are considered natural victims, yet somehow this isn't allowed to make them pathetic or useless (but weak, yes, and that's fine). It's all about perception.

 

You know perfectly well that whitewind was expressing what he sees as the typical attitude of society in general, and not expressing this view himself. This, in fact, shows that both you, whitewind, and I, are dissatisfied with these gender stereotypes. This would have been a great opportunity to acknowledge a point of agreement from which we can then discuss who is more negatively affected by these stereotypes and how they can be overcome (points we disagree on). Instead, you decide to misinterpret his post so you can just argue.

Edited by ballzac
forgot to close a bracket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know perfectly well that whitewind was expressing what he sees as the typical attitude of society in general, and not expressing this view himself. This, in fact, shows that both you, whitewind, and I, are dissatisfied with these gender stereotypes. This would have been a great opportunity to acknowledge a point of agreement from which we can then discuss who is more negatively affected by these stereotypes and how they can be overcome (points we disagree on). Instead, you decide to misinterpret his post so you can just argue.

 

You know perfectly well that racketemensch just made a mistake. This would have been a great opportunity to gently point out his error and move on with the discussion. Instead, you decide to misintepret his post as wilful obfuscation just so you can argue.

:P:) ;) :wub:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know perfectly well that racketemensch just made a mistake. This would have been a great opportunity to gently point out his error and move on with the discussion. Instead, you decide to misintepret his post as wilful obfuscation just so you can argue.

:P:) ;) :wub:

 

It's a somewhat plausible hypothesis. I actually had three hypotheses and decided to only address one of them.

A. deliberate misinterpretation

B. honest mistake

C. moron

I decided to go the middle ground. :innocent_n:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the answer is "B", then I hope Raketmensch apologises for calling whitewind a misogynist

 

Takes a while for her to get to her main point, but I think it's interesting to here this perspective coming from an African American woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a somewhat plausible hypothesis. I actually had three hypotheses and decided to only address one of them.

A. deliberate misinterpretation

B. honest mistake

C. moron

I decided to go the middle ground. :innocent_n:

 

As a good philosopher and critical thinker, I would urge you to rethink your rationale for deciding and instead adhere to one of the most fundamental principles of constructive argument and remember the Principle of Charity. Under such a rubric, you would choose 'honest mistake,' at least initially. :)

If we continue to try to view racketemensch's response from this charitable perspective, it is easy to see evidence that confirms hypothesis B. To wit, whitewind edited his post, and the wording that racketemensch copied above could be easily misinterpreted as it is supposed to be sarcastic and satirical but the text contains no indication of this, which would usually be communicated via intonation and body language.

Edited by chilli
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the answer is "B", then I hope Raketmensch apologises for calling whitewind a misogynist

 

First you would have to convince him of his error.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you would have to convince him of his error.

 

If the answer is not "A", and the last couple of posts haven't convinced him that it's "B", then I'm afraid that would sway me towards "C" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both sets of data are consistent with my position, but only the set you provided is consistent with yours.

 

What was your position again? I thought it was that (at this point) if women earn less than men it is due to lifestyle choices that women consistently make that men do not make (i.e. they deserve lower pay for making bad choices, not that they are valued differently in the workplace). If so, the data sets I've presented are definitely not consistent with your view.

"Alison Booth of ANU demonastrates that..." a small component of the gender wage gap is due to choices that women make in the marketplace that are probably not innate and are mostly due to sociological factors.

 

This is partially correct. Booth does argue here and elsewhere that the reason women have lower pay is not anything to do with being innate (a point which she leaves, saying it cannot be proven with surveys), but can be best explained by sociological factors. While she avoids the terminology of discrimination (marking the term with "scare quotes") in favour of the less provocative terminology of "returns", clearly she has demonstrated that women in Europe get lower "returns" for the same labour. She attributes this to environmentally influenced psychological differences - i.e. the workplace caters better to men's needs than to women's. She even states:

Whether or not it transfers into the largely male corridors of power and into the demand-side of the economy is a largely unresearched area.

 

First, women's willingness to pursue outside offers and their ability to accept these may differ from that of men, reinforcing their poorer position in the labour market.

 

First, women are perceived less favourably than men as potential leaders. And second, if women do manage to obtain a position of leadership they are then evaluated less favourably because they do not fit society's prescriptions of what is appropriate behaviour for women. This ambivalence can produce a variety of effects that may make it harder for women to achieve positions of leadership.15 Some evidence of this was found in the recent experimental study by Beaman et al. (2008), which showed that first-time women leaders received worse evaluations despite outperforming male counterparts on many performance dimensions.

 

Male corridors of power. Women being paid lower for the same labour. Poorer position in the labour market. etc. I believe my point is proven.

By the way, the article is not primarily about behavioural choices at all - the main one she discusses is the ability to bargain/negotiate - most of the article is analysing structural then psychological reasons for the pay gap. She also has articles demonstrating that women are likely to be hired to low level (entry level) positions, whereas men are more likely to be promoted. On the differential between gaps in men's wages in European countries (much, much less dramatic than the male/female comparison). The gender wage gap between workers at different wage brackets, and so on.

On my calling whitewind a misogynist, you've forgotten the fourth possibility that I'm correct. Not a really thorough logical examination by you, then. The fact that he stated "weak, yes, and that's fine" demonstrates that he is not merely reflecting the "opinions of society". But let's stick to the article, since I've given you the meat you wanted for the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my calling whitewind a misogynist, you've forgotten the fourth possibility that I'm correct. Not a really thorough logical examination by you, then. The fact that he stated "weak, yes, and that's fine" demonstrates that he is not merely reflecting the "opinions of society".

 

The way I read it, the context of that comment is a sarcastic satire of what he sees as being wrong with the way society sees women, so I read it as saying something like 'society says it is not okay for a man to be weak, but of course it is fine for women to be weak'

Maybe whitewind can confirm how he meant it, and then things can move on, because it would be a shame if the discussion stopped moving forward over a simple misunderstanding that could easily be cleared up if everyone stopped judging each other's motives and accusing each other of being bad in some way (I know I am the worst at this, but that is what qualifes me to say it :P)

Edited by chilli
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, my post isn't enormously well worded. Shouldn't get up so early in the morning and start writing before coffee. I'm happy to give Racketmensch the benefit of the doubt so long as (s)he withdraws the misogynist claim.

Part of the problem is that in our culture men aren't "allowed" to be victims - or this makes them weak, useless, pathetic. Whereas, women are considered natural victims, yet somehow this isn't allowed to make them pathetic or useless (but weak, yes, and that's fine). It's all about perception.

I'll try to clarify.

Part of the problem is that in our culture men aren't "allowed" to be victims - as this makes them weak, useless, and pathetic. All negative things, apparently.

Whereas, women are considered natural victims, because they are naturally slightly weaker than men.

It's all about perception. Why is okay for women to be weak, and men not? Why can weak men never be considered natural victims, or if they are, this is a matter for scorn and not community support?

This isn't a criticism of women, it is a criticism of the perception of men.

Laws and judgements made around these perceptions are not necessarily fair, because they aren't necessarily true.

I believe that this polarisation of the genders is a bad thing, it categorises people into boxes that most people actually don't fit enormously well. Not only that, as I mentioned in a previous post, we can transcend our gender / sex / natural hormone and instinctive responses using mental and physical techniques - men can use mental techniques to conquer natural physical aggression (and believe me, many men have to do this several times a day, and manage just fine) and women can train at martial arts to become, on average, stronger and more capable than most untrained men. As but two examples. The differences are actually quite small.

Also, Racketmensch, you still haven't accepted that women are quite capable of making lifestyle choices that negatively affect their pay. Why they would do this, is perhaps because they believe that full-time work isn't in their best interest, and if they have a partner who is willing to support their lifestyle choices, then they tend to do it. Conversely, men are still expected to support their families monetarily (not in all cases, but more frequently than you might like), but where to find the figures to persuade you - I'll leave it to Ballzac, he has them at his fingertips. Your latest post makes the assumption that women's choices at a working level leads to less pay (bad choices) but everyone else is talking about the choice not to persue a career, or persue something they like rather than something that will earn good money and support a family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair call on my misreading your post whitewind, thanks for explaining it to me. However, what we're talking about is people doing the same work and receiving uneven rates of pay. We're not arguing about whether its unfair that a stay at home mum or dad should get the same wage as a full-time paramedic, we're arguing about across the board discrimination indicated by wage differentials in the same position, for the same work. It's comparable to arguing that a banana farmer in Ecuador getting paid less than a banana farmer in Coffs which is indicative of an economically oppressive system that favours the first world, just as workplace hierarchies favour men over women (this is clearly evidenced in the article I've posted, which also shows escalating wage differentials as the wage increases - i.e. women are not only paid less, but to some extent kept out of high up positions and mistrusted when they do manage to get into high up positions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was your position again? I thought it was that (at this point) if women earn less than men it is due to lifestyle choices that women consistently make that men do not make (i.e. they deserve lower pay for making bad choices, not that they are valued differently in the workplace). If so, the data sets I've presented are definitely not consistent with your view.

 

tumblr_lfrvjlSm9w1qalod2o1_500.png

It only controls for "major occupational group". It does not even count whether they are full time or part time, let alone things like whether it's day shift or night shift, and it's not clear whether a "major group" like construction would include the receptionist for a construction company or whether they would be included in the "office" group. But construction would definitely group someone doing low skilled and low danger work in with someone doing more skilled and more dangerous work. There are many other things that could be controlled for, like how long the person has been employed in the company, how many breaks they've had in their career and for how long, their educational level...

These are all things that depend on the choices one makes in life. It's not even that they are necessarily "bad choices" as you put it. It depends on what you want out of life. And considering it's mostly when women are married with kids that they earn less than men, they're also spending the majority of the household earnings. So I don't think they're bad choices at all. Choosing less stressful, less dangerous jobs for lower pay when your husband is raking in the money is not necessarily a bad choice, just a different one. But that data you posted is entirely consistent with my contention that the pay gap is not due to workplace discrimination. You say this is "definitely not consistent with (my) view". Can you explain why you say this in light of my explanation I've given...please?

Male corridors of power. Women being paid lower for the same labour. Poorer position in the labour market. etc. I believe my point is proven.

 

Yep, picking out a few 'buzzwords' rather than actually addressing the fact that there was no mention of any proof of discrimination in the discussion paper whatsoever. I'm hoping anyone who is following this discussion actually reads the paper, because it is about the choices women make that affect their employment opportunities. It is about a different aspect to the ones I've mostly been addressing. Namely, she is looking at the negotiation skills and competitiveness of women in the workplace, rather than what jobs women choose based on whether they want to raise children or not, which is more what I have been addressing. But there is nothing whatsoever in that article that provides any proof of discrimination in the workplace.

Edited by ballzac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's that ego coming along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^just when I thought you were out of ad homs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is silly, you're reusing a graph that I posted as a reply to your bureau of stats graph as if it were part of the article or has anything to do with the methodology of the survey for which we have some decent background information. You're also trying to muddy the waters of discussion by avoiding the facts the paper presents and trying to make it seem as if the paper is explaining that women are paid lower because of bad work-related decisions. It isn't. At all. The dataset I present is not consistent with your view because it evidences workplace discrimination, not poor choices by women.

The main choices you're talking about (as far as I can tell, from the examples you've given) are related to marriage and children. Well, the article doesn't even mention marriage as a significant factor, and has this to say about children:

However, by age 30 there remains a substantial unexplained gap: women who have continuous full-time employment, have had no children and express no desire to have them, earn about 8 log points less than equivalent men after 10 years in the labour market.

 

There you go, ballzac, discrimination.

Furthermore, your argument about choice is a dodgy one. If women across the board were earning less because of their choices (which is untrue, but I'll indulge it for the sake of making a point) that would indicate a structural bias in the workplace towards men. i.e. a bias towards the decisions men are more likely to make. This, in turn, would indicate that the workplace hasn't transformed itself to accommodate women. And let's look at the claim analogically.

(1) Women are paid less because they don't make decisions which maximise their wage possibilities.

(2) Women are raped because they don't dress appropriately when they go out.

(3) Women are killed because they make choices that dishonour their family.

See a trend here? It's called blaming the victim, and it happens to women alllll the time, not only in daily discourse but in legal proceedings, workplace discrimination, domestic situations, and so on. Let's think about the claim that women would be treated equally in the workplace if only they made the correct decisions there in terms of an issue that is discussed often on this forum:

Plant users are only persecuted by the government because they make the poor decision to grow or ingest plants.

My point is, that when there is a broad group being persecuted for their "choices" it can indicate a problem with the system within which those choices are being made. So not only is your argument about discrimination factually mistaken, but it is also logically dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about Booth's paper.

But I have also posted stuff that is very specific to refute opinions held by members here. Several pages back you said that one needs to make certain assumptions in order claim that the wage gap is due to the different choices women make rather than workplace discrimination. I provided what I believe to be pretty strong evidence these assumptions need not be made. Specifically, that never married, childless women earn more than never married, childless men. (I don't see how this could be the case if women are paid less because they are women. Here is the exact data again:

GRAPH

Yet you chose to opt out of the discussion at that point rather than accept that you were wrong or provide an alternative explanation as to how this could be the case if women are paid less because of their gender

 

I can, of course, throw statistics back at you showing that women earn less than men, let's have a go:

GRAPH

As I've already stated, I'm dubious about the usefulness of throwing stats back and forth on the net, and I think the problem is much more complex than wage disparity.

 

Now you come back with "Men, on average, earn more than women" again, rather than addressing the last point.

 

In case you're still unclear on what I'm saying here, the data you provide is entirely consistent with point of view, but you have not shown how my data is consistent with yours.

 

Actually, the conversation went on to my showing some other statistics that show women earning less, along with a criticism of the claim that age, education, marriage, and children are enough to evaluate lifestyles as identical. I can think of one biggie: homosexuality. I can think of another: race. These are not factored in the study, so I'm arguing that stats aren't complex enough an explanation for the problems we're talking about. Fit the method to the problem, my friend.

 

Actually, pretty often I've responded with hard data to demonstrate that you can easily find stats that prove things either way.

 

I showed you that for every statistic you could produce showing that women have it better than men, I could present you with one "proving" the opposite.

 

Actually, that's the order the discussion occurred in prior to you ever posting anything about the work by Booth, and the point I was making was that your data was consistent with my position. What you did when you then started talking about Booth's discussion paper is called moving the goal posts. You never actually addressed my point that you hadn't proven your point that anyone can throw statistics up to make their point. Now you might be conceding that the original graph you posted is consistent with my position? I'm not really sure. You still haven't addressed it. Are we done with that? Or do we still disagree. I'd like you to adress my point with clarity and honesty before quote-mining a thirty page document and expecting me to address it. I'm happy to discuss this rationally, but you need to put the work in to address my points if you expect me to give you the same courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck it. This one was too good to ignore...

However, by age 30 there remains a substantial unexplained gap: women who have continuous full-time employment, have had no children and express no desire to have them, earn about 8 log points less than equivalent men after 10 years in the labour market.

 

There you go, ballzac, discrimination.

 

It's interesting that you chose to terminate your quote at that point. What was the problem with including the full paragraph?

However, by age 30 there remains a substantial unexplained gap: women who have

continuous full-time employment, have had no children and express no desire to have them, earn

about 8 log points less than equivalent men after 10 years in the labour market. Manning and

Swaffield then investigate the role of psychological variables in explaining this, focusing on risk

attitudes, competitiveness, self-esteem, ‘other-regarding’, and career-orientation. The

psychological variables are found to explain an ‘upper-bound’ of 4.5 log points of the gender

wage gap.

 

...or even finishing off the section

Some of these survey-based measures of psychological factors are rather indirect.

Moreover it is not easy to find measures of psychological factors that are genuinely

predetermined or that do not change over time. It is therefore of great interest to see if alternative

methods of data collection can shed light on whether or not there are significant gender

differences in psychological factors that could explain gender pay gaps and glass ceilings.

 

You are quote-mining. It is so completely dishonest. You brought up this paper. I am happy to discuss the actual content of the article, but if you're going to take a sentence out of context so it can look like she's saying that discrimination accounts for a large amount of the pay gap, then how can we actually have an adult discussion. The entire paper is about the psychological factors of the women that influence their behaviour in a way that causes them to earn less than men. If anything, you're making my point for me, because I didn't even know that factors like this contributed to the pay gap. Perhaps this was another honest mistake? You seem to be making a lot of them lately.

You're also trying to muddy the waters of discussion by avoiding the facts the paper presents and trying to make it seem as if the paper is explaining that women are paid lower because of bad work-related decisions. It isn't. At all.

 

Am I going nuts? I can understand that we may argue about what the results of research mean, but are we really arguing about what the paper is about? It seems clear as day to me. How can we even begin to discuss the details of research like this if we can't even agree on what the paper is about?

I've already posted the conclusion in it's entirety. I don't expect many people here to bother reading the full document because of its length. I've noted that the abstract was a little vague so I wasn't going to quote it, but here it is:

In almost all European Union countries, the gender wage gap is increasing across the

wages distribution. In this lecture I briefly survey some recent studies aiming to

explain why apparently identical women and men receive such different returns and

focus especially on those incorporating psychological factors as an explanation of the

gender gap. Research areas with high potential returns to further analysis are

identified. Several examples from my own recent experimental work with Patrick

Nolen are also presented. These try to distinguish between the role of nature and

nurture in affecting behavioural differences between men and women that might lead

to gender wage gaps

 

And let's look at the claim analogically.

(1) Women are paid less because they don't make decisions which maximise their wage possibilities.

(2) Women are raped because they don't dress appropriately when they go out.

(3) Women are killed because they make choices that dishonour their family.

See a trend here? It's called blaming the victim, and it happens to women alllll the time

 

Wow. Just wow. Do you actually want me to address this 'point'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for quoting more of the article, I'm going to let it speak for itself :)

If anyone else actually reads this and wants to read the article, contact me and I'll let you know how.

Point proven, I'm done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×