Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Women Ask for Pay Rises as Much as Men

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 4:51:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

http://s2.quickmeme.com...
Meh!
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 4:52:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 4:51:37 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?
http://s2.quickmeme.com...

Hopefully not. I'd rather see an honest engagement with the topic...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 4:53:32 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 4:52:36 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 4:51:37 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?
http://s2.quickmeme.com...

Hopefully not. I'd rather see an honest engagement with the topic...

Just wait until Bball and YYW finds this xD
Meh!
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:21:09 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

*Feminism intensifies*
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:24:54 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
You know how when the explosives in controlled demolition fail to go off? And its just sitting there waiting to explode? That's how this thread feels.
Meh!
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:58:53 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Well the wage gap has been shortening recently. Perhaps this is a cause. Still not real though.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 12:06:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

As with any study, I would like to see the methodology. It would appear as though all the employees are put into a pot, stirred, and then pulled for polling. There is a mixture of full and part time employees with (upon casual observation) no consideration given to part time vs full time populations, or seniority. Quality of work/employee is also glossed over, though this is highly subjective to judge to begin with.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:01:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

I don't think this has much to do with sexism, and more to do with efficiency of the workers. It just so happens (as a coincidence) that these men have been more efficient than women counterparts.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:05:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:01:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

I don't think this has much to do with sexism, and more to do with efficiency of the workers. It just so happens (as a coincidence) that these men have been more efficient than women counterparts.

How do you reach that conclusion?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:08:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 12:06:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

As with any study, I would like to see the methodology. It would appear as though all the employees are put into a pot, stirred, and then pulled for polling. There is a mixture of full and part time employees with (upon casual observation) no consideration given to part time vs full time populations, or seniority. Quality of work/employee is also glossed over, though this is highly subjective to judge to begin with.

The article states: "When like-for-like male and female workers were compared, men were 25% more likely to get a pay rise when they asked, the study found." This indicates that the study is comparing full-time men to full-time women (like-to-like). This is confirmed in the study itself on page 11.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:10:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:05:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 5:01:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

I don't think this has much to do with sexism, and more to do with efficiency of the workers. It just so happens (as a coincidence) that these men have been more efficient than women counterparts.

How do you reach that conclusion?

There's no evidence of sexism, and I doubt people in the West would be sexist at the expense of benefit to their corporations.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:14:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:08:25 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 12:06:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

As with any study, I would like to see the methodology. It would appear as though all the employees are put into a pot, stirred, and then pulled for polling. There is a mixture of full and part time employees with (upon casual observation) no consideration given to part time vs full time populations, or seniority. Quality of work/employee is also glossed over, though this is highly subjective to judge to begin with.

The article states: "When like-for-like male and female workers were compared, men were 25% more likely to get a pay rise when they asked, the study found." This indicates that the study is comparing full-time men to full-time women (like-to-like). This is confirmed in the study itself on page 11.

With what level of seniority and what level of output?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:15:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:14:37 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/6/2016 5:08:25 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 12:06:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

As with any study, I would like to see the methodology. It would appear as though all the employees are put into a pot, stirred, and then pulled for polling. There is a mixture of full and part time employees with (upon casual observation) no consideration given to part time vs full time populations, or seniority. Quality of work/employee is also glossed over, though this is highly subjective to judge to begin with.

The article states: "When like-for-like male and female workers were compared, men were 25% more likely to get a pay rise when they asked, the study found." This indicates that the study is comparing full-time men to full-time women (like-to-like). This is confirmed in the study itself on page 11.

With what level of seniority and what level of output?

I would suggest you read the study.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:20:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:10:00 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/6/2016 5:05:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 5:01:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

I don't think this has much to do with sexism, and more to do with efficiency of the workers. It just so happens (as a coincidence) that these men have been more efficient than women counterparts.

How do you reach that conclusion?

There's no evidence of sexism

There is evidence for sexism. The disparity in outcomes for men and women is evidence for sexism, though it is by no means a smoking gun. It's like the equivalent of circumstantial evidence in court; the evidence could be explained in other ways, but sexism is a very plausible explanation.

I doubt people in the West would be sexist at the expense of benefit to their corporations.

I don't really agree with that; it's far too generous. Sexism is not necessarily conscious or open. It is not guaranteed that someone who makes a sexist decision (a) understands how the reasons for that decision are sexist, (b) does not have sexist tendencies or slants of which they are not directly aware, or (c) that the way companies structure promotional systems make systematically disadvantage women (if men are the ones giving out promotions, maybe they are more like to favor men).
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 6:17:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Unless I've misread somewhere, but don't men usually stay at jobs longer, while women switch jobs more often? It seems to me that seniority is the key factor here. And don't men usually accept a greater amount of hours?

While I'm sure I can easily pull up some sources, I've realized that I am late for work, and so shall give them to you once I've returned. Unless someone else pulls up sources instead. But I don't think I'll get so lucky.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 3:44:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
If a software developer asks for a pay raise, you'll give it to him because it's difficult to find good software developers. If a secretary asks for a pay raise, you'll deny it because it's easy to find good secretaries.

Software developers tend to be men, and secretaries tend to be women. It's unclear whether the study controlled for this type of thing.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:46:28 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 3:44:55 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
If a software developer asks for a pay raise, you'll give it to him because it's difficult to find good software developers. If a secretary asks for a pay raise, you'll deny it because it's easy to find good secretaries.

Software developers tend to be men, and secretaries tend to be women. It's unclear whether the study controlled for this type of thing.

Pretty much this.

We already know women are far more likely than men to take time off of work than men, and we also know they are not willing to sacrifice family time by working weekends, odd hours, at the office compared to their male counterparts. This makes women far more replaceable as a worker. Until women become less family oriented and more work oriented, they will be compensated less because they produce less. The more replaceable you are as a worker, the less you will be paid. That's how the market works.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:04:24 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:20:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I doubt people in the West would be sexist at the expense of benefit to their corporations.

I don't really agree with that; it's far too generous. Sexism is not necessarily conscious or open. It is not guaranteed that someone who makes a sexist decision (a) understands how the reasons for that decision are sexist, (b) does not have sexist tendencies or slants of which they are not directly aware, or (c) that the way companies structure promotional systems make systematically disadvantage women (if men are the ones giving out promotions, maybe they are more like to favor men).

It doesn't matter if you think sexism is conscious or open. We are talking about profit machines. Businesses created for the sole purpose of making money. Of course there is going to be discrimination; but to say that profit making decisions correlates with gender is coincidental at best. Especially in the global dog-eat-dog market where competition is rampant, quick, and fierce; where you can be completely bought out for the slightest of profit margin errors. It makes absolutely no sense that any business can afford to enjoy gender bias on any level. Conscious or unconscious.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:09:33 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:20:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I don't really agree with that; it's far too generous. Sexism is not necessarily conscious or open. It is not guaranteed that someone who makes a sexist decision (a) understands how the reasons for that decision are sexist, (b) does not have sexist tendencies or slants of which they are not directly aware, or (c) that the way companies structure promotional systems make systematically disadvantage women (if men are the ones giving out promotions, maybe they are more like to favor men).

To take this a bit further, all these "experts" who have suddenly found the "AHA" inside track on business, and discovered this "magical business formula," namely: that women are undervalued in the workplace, should simply invest in start up businesses completely run and staffed by women. The hilarious, predictable result from this venture should be enough to silence the most SJWish of SJWs.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 10:55:14 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:20:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There is evidence for sexism. The disparity in outcomes for men and women is evidence for sexism, though it is by no means a smoking gun. It's like the equivalent of circumstantial evidence in court; the evidence could be explained in other ways, but sexism is a very plausible explanation.

Well, when studies take into account different career choices, etc. the gap in the US disappears -- that's not the case with all studies, but it is the case with a lot of them. While I'm able to buy that small-scale businesses might discriminate against women -- though I think the discrimination would come under the form of not employing women at all rather than paying them less -- I seriously doubt major corporations do the same since they know it's counterproductive to what their ends are.

I don't really agree with that; it's far too generous. Sexism is not necessarily conscious or open. It is not guaranteed that someone who makes a sexist decision (a) understands how the reasons for that decision are sexist, (b) does not have sexist tendencies or slants of which they are not directly aware, or (c) that the way companies structure promotional systems make systematically disadvantage women (if men are the ones giving out promotions, maybe they are more like to favor men).

I doubt this because (1) there is no proper causal evidence for this, and there is causal evidence against this; and (2) once more corporations fundamentally look out for themselves, and won't do something so counterproductive to that end, especially since there is no cultural rejection of women in work in the West today. In Asian countries I can understand it, but I am skeptical that the same applies in the West.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 12:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
In addition to the many valid points that were brought up, I'd like to add my own.

Let me ask you this. If I were to mix an equal number of red and blue marbles in a bag and drop them all in a funnel that ended on a two sided object that the marbles could fall in a pile on either side of, what do you expect to happen? Do you think that there will always be exactly 50/50 of each color of marbles on both sides? If 75% of the red marbles fell on one side and 60% of the blue marbles fell on the same side, do you think the bag, funnel, or two-sided object are discriminating against a certain color of marble? Do you think that the hill is being unfair to the marbles because more of both colors of marble ended on the same side? Or is it simply that randomization will rarely end with the results you expect or necessarily prefer and the results are far more likely to be...well...random?

The point is, it is simply ridiculous to say,"I notice differences" and then automatically scream,"discrimination!" That simply is not how the real world works. I'm not saying that discrimination is impossible or never happens, but in a world were there are fairly large repercussions to breaking discrimination laws and pissing off skilled workers that can easily work somewhere else (especially if they are just as qualified as their raise-deserving counterparts) most non-feminist people will NOT take you seriously if you try and say that discrimination is a forgone conclusion wherever there are differences and no further explanation is necessary. And that does raise a very important question. If these women think that they are being unfairly treated, then why don't they act like adults and work somewhere else or protest or something like any man would be expected to? Have we lost our freedoms and now live like serfs and have no choice but to work as slaves at the same job and I was suddenly unaware of this basic freedom we have now lost? If you are not being treated fairly, then leave the job. We have no pity for men if they stupidly remain at a job where they are not being compensated for their work, why should we treat women so differently. It's called being a reasonably intelligent grownup and taking responsibility for your own life. If these women are just as capable of bidding for higher pay as their male counterparts, then they must not dispute the results like any reasonable adult otherwise would and therefor must be agreeing to their pay. Men bid for raises all the time and do not get it, but maybe they are more willing to do something about it if they don't receive raises. Equality should dictate that, while we should desire equal opportunity for women, we also should hold them equally responsible for their situation if they choose to not utilize the vast array of opportunity that is indeed available to them too. Feminism, though, rarely wants the responsibilities that accompany the benefits they think should be handed out without having earned it so that they can reach that 50/50 number that would never actually occur naturally, discrimination or not. Maybe the reason for the difference is that the men know that if they are not compensated for their work they have no recourse but to personally take action in some meaningful way, whereas some small percentage of women expect to have the feminist thought-police and professional-victims come in and force unfair laws and work policies for the benefit of people who aren't adult enough to take responsibility for their own situation in life. We just don't know. No matter what, the truth remains that IF these women are so incredibly qualified to be deserving these raises and they decide to work somewhere else, then the businesses that engage in fair, non-discriminatory practices will benefit greatly by receiving a larger number of skilled workers than their "misogynist" or "racist" competitors and will therefor be able to dominate the competition to near-extinction. But, alas, there is a reason that this just simply does not happen in the workforce and probably never will.

I think it's also incredibly important to point out the last two paragraphs of the very article that we are discussing:
"The study also found differences according to age, with women and men under 40 BOTH ASKING FOR AND RECEIVING PAY RISES AT THE SAME RATE, which the researchers said could mean that negotiating behaviour had started to change.
Dr Amanda Goodall from Cass Business School - part of City, University of London - and a co-author of the study, said: "The study potentially has an upside. Young women today are negotiating their pay and conditions more successfully than older females, and perhaps that will continue as they become more senior.""
(Capitalized, emboldened, italicized, and underlined for emphasis.)

So, in other words, as women have been entering the workforce and becoming more skilled, trained, and workplace savvy (as well as responsible in their choices in the workplace), they are now having their work valued in pay raises equal to men. My God, who would've thought that a people in the past just entering the workforce might not receive equal raises, but as new generations become more educated trained on how to receive good results in the workplace to meet their peers, that they will magically receive raises at a similar rate! Who could've possibly fathomed that social change doesn't happen overnight and that historically it has taken many years or generations to see the benefits of social movements and such and we therefor might not be able to expect too much difference in this particular subject? Holy hell, this is so confusing! How does something like this happen?! Maybe we can just waste everybody's time by hysterically screaming "DISCRIMINATIOOOOOOOOOON!!!" at everything although there very likely is none or very little until either our ideology somehow becomes relevant to actual reality or our heads explode!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 1:43:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 12:41:24 PM, neptune1bond wrote:
In addition to the many valid points that were brought up, I'd like to add my own.

Let me ask you this. If I were to mix an equal number of red and blue marbles in a bag and drop them all in a funnel that ended on a two sided object that the marbles could fall in a pile on either side of, what do you expect to happen? Do you think that there will always be exactly 50/50 of each color of marbles on both sides? If 75% of the red marbles fell on one side and 60% of the blue marbles fell on the same side, do you think the bag, funnel, or two-sided object are discriminating against a certain color of marble? Do you think that the hill is being unfair to the marbles because more of both colors of marble ended on the same side? Or is it simply that randomization will rarely end with the results you expect or necessarily prefer and the results are far more likely to be...well...random?

The point is, it is simply ridiculous to say,"I notice differences" and then automatically scream,"discrimination!" That simply is not how the real world works. I'm not saying that discrimination is impossible or never happens, but in a world were there are fairly large repercussions to breaking discrimination laws and pissing off skilled workers that can easily work somewhere else (especially if they are just as qualified as their raise-deserving counterparts) most non-feminist people will NOT take you seriously if you try and say that discrimination is a forgone conclusion wherever there are differences and no further explanation is necessary. And that does raise a very important question. If these women think that they are being unfairly treated, then why don't they act like adults and work somewhere else or protest or something like any man would be expected to? Have we lost our freedoms and now live like serfs and have no choice but to work as slaves at the same job and I was suddenly unaware of this basic freedom we have now lost? If you are not being treated fairly, then leave the job. We have no pity for men if they stupidly remain at a job where they are not being compensated for their work, why should we treat women so differently. It's called being a reasonably intelligent grownup and taking responsibility for your own life. If these women are just as capable of bidding for higher pay as their male counterparts, then they must not dispute the results like any reasonable adult otherwise would and therefor must be agreeing to their pay. Men bid for raises all the time and do not get it, but maybe they are more willing to do something about it if they don't receive raises. Equality should dictate that, while we should desire equal opportunity for women, we also should hold them equally responsible for their situation if they choose to not utilize the vast array of opportunity that is indeed available to them too. Feminism, though, rarely wants the responsibilities that accompany the benefits they think should be handed out without having earned it so that they can reach that 50/50 number that would never actually occur naturally, discrimination or not. Maybe the reason for the difference is that the men know that if they are not compensated for their work they have no recourse but to personally take action in some meaningful way, whereas some small percentage of women expect to have the feminist thought-police and professional-victims come in and force unfair laws and work policies for the benefit of people who aren't adult enough to take responsibility for their own situation in life. We just don't know. No matter what, the truth remains that IF these women are so incredibly qualified to be deserving these raises and they decide to work somewhere else, then the businesses that engage in fair, non-discriminatory practices will benefit greatly by receiving a larger number of skilled workers than their "misogynist" or "racist" competitors and will therefor be able to dominate the competition to near-extinction. But, alas, there is a reason that this just simply does not happen in the workforce and probably never will.

I think it's also incredibly important to point out the last two paragraphs of the very article that we are discussing:
"The study also found differences according to age, with women and men under 40 BOTH ASKING FOR AND RECEIVING PAY RISES AT THE SAME RATE, which the researchers said could mean that negotiating behaviour had started to change.
Dr Amanda Goodall from Cass Business School - part of City, University of London - and a co-author of the study, said: "The study potentially has an upside. Young women today are negotiating their pay and conditions more successfully than older females, and perhaps that will continue as they become more senior.""
(Capitalized, emboldened, italicized, and underlined for emphasis.)

So, in other words, as women have been entering the workforce and becoming more skilled, trained, and workplace savvy (as well as responsible in their choices in the workplace), they are now having their work valued in pay raises equal to men. My God, who would've thought that a people in the past just entering the workforce might not receive equal raises, but as new generations become more educated trained on how to receive good results in the workplace to meet their peers, that they will magically receive raises at a similar rate! Who could've possibly fathomed that social change doesn't happen overnight and that historically it has taken many years or generations to see the benefits of social movements and such and we therefor might not be able to expect too much difference in this particular subject? Holy hell, this is so confusing! How does something like this happen?! Maybe we can just waste everybody's time by hysterically screaming "DISCRIMINATIOOOOOOOOOON!!!" at everything although there very likely is none or very little until either our ideology somehow becomes relevant to actual reality or our heads explode!

This entire post smacks of misogyny, and simply demonstrates that sexism is internalized in the job market.

Shame.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:08:25 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 12:06:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/6/2016 3:41:49 AM, bsh1 wrote:
A study examining 4,600 workers found "no support" for the "reticent female" hypothesis. Women ask for pay rises as much as men, but the men were still 25% more likely to receive a raise than the women. [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? How might this data contribute to the debate over "equal pay for equal work" currently raging in America?

As with any study, I would like to see the methodology. It would appear as though all the employees are put into a pot, stirred, and then pulled for polling. There is a mixture of full and part time employees with (upon casual observation) no consideration given to part time vs full time populations, or seniority. Quality of work/employee is also glossed over, though this is highly subjective to judge to begin with.

The article states: "When like-for-like male and female workers were compared, men were 25% more likely to get a pay rise when they asked, the study found." This indicates that the study is comparing full-time men to full-time women (like-to-like). This is confirmed in the study itself on page 11.

lol "when they asked" so maybe just maybe men ask for raises differently than women? Maybe men are more convincing, by let's say oh I dunno 25% more often? Yep great study like most of them. Who is more likely to grant the raise, a woman or a man? Maybe a woman in charge grants men raises more often than they do for women? So unless you can determine these things and put it into better context there is no way to determine if this is real or cherry picking stats.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:24:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
There is literally no such thing as a wage gap, and there is nothing that could even approach evidence of such a gap existing.

This is funny...
Tsar of DDO
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:01:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:43:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/7/2016 12:41:24 PM, neptune1bond wrote:
In addition to the many valid points that were brought up, I'd like to add my own.

Let me ask you this. If I were to mix an equal number of red and blue marbles in a bag and drop them all in a funnel that ended on a two sided object that the marbles could fall in a pile on either side of, what do you expect to happen? Do you think that there will always be exactly 50/50 of each color of marbles on both sides? If 75% of the red marbles fell on one side and 60% of the blue marbles fell on the same side, do you think the bag, funnel, or two-sided object are discriminating against a certain color of marble? Do you think that the hill is being unfair to the marbles because more of both colors of marble ended on the same side? Or is it simply that randomization will rarely end with the results you expect or necessarily prefer and the results are far more likely to be...well...random?

The point is, it is simply ridiculous to say,"I notice differences" and then automatically scream,"discrimination!" That simply is not how the real world works. I'm not saying that discrimination is impossible or never happens, but in a world were there are fairly large repercussions to breaking discrimination laws and pissing off skilled workers that can easily work somewhere else (especially if they are just as qualified as their raise-deserving counterparts) most non-feminist people will NOT take you seriously if you try and say that discrimination is a forgone conclusion wherever there are differences and no further explanation is necessary. And that does raise a very important question. If these women think that they are being unfairly treated, then why don't they act like adults and work somewhere else or protest or something like any man would be expected to? Have we lost our freedoms and now live like serfs and have no choice but to work as slaves at the same job and I was suddenly unaware of this basic freedom we have now lost? If you are not being treated fairly, then leave the job. We have no pity for men if they stupidly remain at a job where they are not being compensated for their work, why should we treat women so differently. It's called being a reasonably intelligent grownup and taking responsibility for your own life. If these women are just as capable of bidding for higher pay as their male counterparts, then they must not dispute the results like any reasonable adult otherwise would and therefor must be agreeing to their pay. Men bid for raises all the time and do not get it, but maybe they are more willing to do something about it if they don't receive raises. Equality should dictate that, while we should desire equal opportunity for women, we also should hold them equally responsible for their situation if they choose to not utilize the vast array of opportunity that is indeed available to them too. Feminism, though, rarely wants the responsibilities that accompany the benefits they think should be handed out without having earned it so that they can reach that 50/50 number that would never actually occur naturally, discrimination or not. Maybe the reason for the difference is that the men know that if they are not compensated for their work they have no recourse but to personally take action in some meaningful way, whereas some small percentage of women expect to have the feminist thought-police and professional-victims come in and force unfair laws and work policies for the benefit of people who aren't adult enough to take responsibility for their own situation in life. We just don't know. No matter what, the truth remains that IF these women are so incredibly qualified to be deserving these raises and they decide to work somewhere else, then the businesses that engage in fair, non-discriminatory practices will benefit greatly by receiving a larger number of skilled workers than their "misogynist" or "racist" competitors and will therefor be able to dominate the competition to near-extinction. But, alas, there is a reason that this just simply does not happen in the workforce and probably never will.

I think it's also incredibly important to point out the last two paragraphs of the very article that we are discussing:
"The study also found differences according to age, with women and men under 40 BOTH ASKING FOR AND RECEIVING PAY RISES AT THE SAME RATE, which the researchers said could mean that negotiating behaviour had started to change.
Dr Amanda Goodall from Cass Business School - part of City, University of London - and a co-author of the study, said: "The study potentially has an upside. Young women today are negotiating their pay and conditions more successfully than older females, and perhaps that will continue as they become more senior.""
(Capitalized, emboldened, italicized, and underlined for emphasis.)

So, in other words, as women have been entering the workforce and becoming more skilled, trained, and workplace savvy (as well as responsible in their choices in the workplace), they are now having their work valued in pay raises equal to men. My God, who would've thought that a people in the past just entering the workforce might not receive equal raises, but as new generations become more educated trained on how to receive good results in the workplace to meet their peers, that they will magically receive raises at a similar rate! Who could've possibly fathomed that social change doesn't happen overnight and that historically it has taken many years or generations to see the benefits of social movements and such and we therefor might not be able to expect too much difference in this particular subject? Holy hell, this is so confusing! How does something like this happen?! Maybe we can just waste everybody's time by hysterically screaming "DISCRIMINATIOOOOOOOOOON!!!" at everything although there very likely is none or very little until either our ideology somehow becomes relevant to actual reality or our heads explode!



This entire post smacks of misogyny, and simply demonstrates that sexism is internalized in the job market.

Shame.

Lol. :D
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:27:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:24:38 PM, YYW wrote:

You were the one who asked that I stay out of your threads. If you won't stay out of mine, I see no reason to honor your request.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 6:17:20 PM, Unitomic wrote:

I think the purpose of this study, or at least what I see as its purpose, is not to rule out every possible confounding variable for the wage gap. Rather, the study seeks to disprove a single, often-cited reason for why women might be paid less at work. The goal of this study is to refute a confounding variable, not all confounding variables.

I think we need to treat it in that light, and given that light, ask how might it add to the debate.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:30:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 3:44:55 AM, ford_prefect wrote:

See post 28.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:31:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 7:09:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 5:20:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I don't really agree with that; it's far too generous. Sexism is not necessarily conscious or open. It is not guaranteed that someone who makes a sexist decision (a) understands how the reasons for that decision are sexist, (b) does not have sexist tendencies or slants of which they are not directly aware, or (c) that the way companies structure promotional systems make systematically disadvantage women (if men are the ones giving out promotions, maybe they are more like to favor men).

To take this a bit further, all these "experts" who have suddenly found the "AHA" inside track on business, and discovered this "magical business formula," namely: that women are undervalued in the workplace, should simply invest in start up businesses completely run and staffed by women. The hilarious, predictable result from this venture should be enough to silence the most SJWish of SJWs.

Not sure what you're getting at here...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...