Wage gap

[Noahs Second Country]

This is literally step one of the two step guide to feminism and fixing the wage gap.

The problem is that somewhere between saying and doing there's an invisible step where you lie, misrepresent the problem, minimize the problems faced by half the population. If the narrative was "There's like a 5 or 6% disparity between the pay of men and women, much of it is do to unconscious assumptions, let's try to be better" there would be nobody (or as close as you can get to nobody) complaining. Instead feminists say "Women make 77 cents on the dollar" and when they're called out on bad numbers they say it again and louder.

Agreed

[ChicagoBoys]

The wage gap does exist, but it is definately not 23 cents. That is the total difference for white women, and only white women, without taking out factors that would make them differentiate from their male counterparts such as degrees and work experience. The real gap differs by race, age, and even location. The only way to close the gap after differentiating factors are removed is to introduce new labour laws and measures to ensure pay can be compared and verified as well as benefits being compared and verified. This would allow for those being unfairly paid, regardless of gender, to right the wrong, as long as proper protections from retaliation are in place, and thus effectively destroy the gap.

And the bureaucracy costs... billions!

Yes, but once the gap is closed how much of that money will go back into the economy? 4 cents on the dollar for every hour for every woman adds up to quite a pretty penny. Plus, it basically gets the idiotic femnazis to shut up because they no longer have an excuse to live on welfare

[Jello Biafra]

Fair enough, but aren't women in their 20s better educated on average than men in their 20s?

Yes, because there has been an approach to education where boys for whatever reason have largely been ostracised. Now, granted, a lot of the difference is down to the choice of the boys not to progress in higher education - and thats fine in general (although White lower-class boys are the least likely demographic to attend university in the UK by some margin).

I do think that there should be some investigation into which portion of the education gap is due to the choices of boys and which portion isn't due to their choices, but thank you for acknowledging that boys' choices probably play at least some role in it.

Women have a similar choice to chose their career or starting a family and we can see that there is a clear difference between women who become mothers and women who do not. Indeed, this disparity is enough to be a notable contributor towards "the wage gap" between all women and all men by a considerable margin.

This choice fits the large amount of evidence that most, if not all of the so called wage gap is entirely down to womens choices. Choices over career paths, and choices over work/life balance.

Your first source says that "What explains the approximately two-thirds of the 7-percent-per-child penalty not explained by the reductions motherhood makes in women's job experience, if little of it is from working in less-demanding or mother-friendly jobs? The remaining motherhood penalty of about 4 percent per child may arise from effects of motherhood on productivity and/or from employer discrimination. A weakness of social science research is that direct measures of either productivity or discrimination are rarely available." We do have direct evidence of discrimination against mothers by employers. If employers are discriminating against mothers, is it fair to call this the result of the choices of women?

Isn't comparing all women in their 20s to all men in their 20s the same tactic as comparing all men in all jobs to all women in all jobs and coming up with a 23% difference?

"The same tactic" would include me repeating it again and again and again in the face of simply overwhelming and widespread evidence of its absurdity. Since I've only mentioned it once (twice if you've counted another post where I've made similar arguments along with suggestions on how to reduce the motherhood gap) with little to negligible evidence of it's inaccuracy I do not believe you can level that accusation.

However, it is something I am at pains to avoid. He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster, after all. I therefore appreciate the concern - it's something I try to avoid.

Fair enough.

[Jello Biafra]

This is literally step one of the two step guide to feminism and fixing the wage gap.

The problem is that somewhere between saying and doing there's an invisible step where you lie, misrepresent the problem, minimize the problems faced by half the population. If the narrative was "There's like a 5 or 6% disparity between the pay of men and women, much of it is do to unconscious assumptions, let's try to be better" there would be nobody (or as close as you can get to nobody) complaining. Instead feminists say "Women make 77 cents on the dollar" and when they're called out on bad numbers they say it again and louder.

The same people who complain about the 23% figure are mostly the same people who deny that discrimination against women occurs to a significant enough degree to be worth fixing at all.

[Des-Bal]

The same people who complain about the 23% figure are mostly the same people who deny that discrimination against women occurs to a significant enough degree to be worth fixing at all.

Yeah, it's almost like when you lie about how serious a problem is people feel disinclined to take it seriously.

[Costa Fierro]

The same people who complain about the 23% figure are mostly the same people who deny that discrimination against women occurs to a significant enough degree to be worth fixing at all.

Yeah, it's almost like when you lie about how serious a problem is people feel disinclined to take it seriously.

There was a story about a boy who kept crying wolf...

[Novorobo]

You clearly have no problem not responding to parts of posts, so why on earth have you responded to something which has no need for further response? (Although, as you can see in Dudo of St Quentin, your assertion is not true if you read in "retrospective prophecies" for ""prediction"".)

Such a concept misses the point of the word "prediction." If this isn't the angle you were going for, you could have immediately said "it wasn't meant as a prediction" and left it at that.

Why would I expect any of your posts to focus on reading?

Hell if I know. Quite frankly, I don't count on expecting others to make sense to me.

If that's the case, you did a terrible job of conveying it.

You still misrepresented what was being said. And in so doing, you have reminded everyone reading why it's important to quote or link to the relevant context, rather than merely "describing" it.

Here's the sentence: "this thread has thousands [...] if they all read through the whole thing". And that was within a paragraph of much ambiguity

Ambiguity means you ask for clarification, not put words in people's mouths.

*Also, pay attention to what I didn't include: "until it makes sense". I shouldn't need to include this as it is clear that one is reading until one destranges something, but it would have been very helpful if I had.

And as noted before, I don't count on others to make sense to me.

The biggest moral I hope any lurkers are getting out of this is that it's easy to be confused when you don't engage with the whole.

So who gets to say what "the whole" is? Sure, technically people are responding within the comment chain (for which they've no idea how long it is) but even assuming they ALL went to the trouble to go through all that, (instead of, you know, one person going to the trouble to quote and/or link to something they know how to find) you've no idea what they're referring to outside the comment chain, or how it affected how the two involved in the comment chain interpreted each others' posts (ie. if someone spoke vaguely of what people in the thread are "generally" saying which by your standard would be good enough) and that kind of makes objectively defining "the whole" rather murky.

Which glosses over the ability to determine whether or not something is reasonable (you know, a necessary implication of your earlier position: "the best we can hope for is an argument that is within the bounds of reason").

It's not a contradiction.

Your narrative implies we can pick and choose about whether or not to "believe" someone on this site based on your prior ideas of what you consider reasonable.

My narrative is more along the lines of "if we're so sure what is or isn't reasonable, why would we need to draw upon others' unproven claims at all? If we aren't, on what basis do we pick and choose?"

As I certainly intended to say (can't be bothered checking to see if I did say it), when I ask for clarification, it's because I need it and being told to look at a post which raises several points is not going to help me.

My mistake, it wasn't in the same post, just a few more ahead...

Hey, just because I'm lazy, doesn't mean everyone else is. Even so, I don't always mean everything I say. Hell, my prior invoking of ad hominem flies in the face of this very conversation, to say nothing of exaggerating the extents of some opinions. For and against the narrative that the death penalty is a valuable deterrent, for instance, when I'm actually more so on the fence about it.

If NSers were such experts on spotting contradictions, they'd have noticed those.

EDIT: And now I realized I got "for" and "against" backwards and didn't realize as much until just now. I'll leave it as it is, though, to prove I didn't edit anything into that post after this one.

You clearly understood the idea once upon a time.

Again, it's not a contradiction. Even within the thread you linked to, I linked to another one where I used the phrase "participate in some webforum."

Whether or not a politics simulator attracts somewhat different people than webforums as a whole; or the question thereof is enough to justify two threads on the matter of webforum participation; is not the same as whether or not you can reasonably count on people on the Internet meaning what they say, nor whether or not it's reasonable to expect thousands of people to follow a path of unknown length that one person could much more easily make much shorter.

[Forsher]

Sorry for the delay in getting to this post... I've had a busy week. Also, I was wasting time in another thread.

Actually, no, scratch that. I'm rage quitting. I'll leave on this sour note adjusted from deep in the bowels of the spoiler:

I'm beginning to wonder what you even think this conversation is about. Someone said something strange. Someone asked a question (to that person) asking if they'd really said that (presumably looking at the quote chain, searching some search terms... i.e. exactly how participants will find it... was not sufficient clarification). Some third person, the only one we know confused by what was going on, says something WHICH MADE NO SENSE to the querier. We don't disagree that footnoting is useful. We disagree that it is (a) equivalent to context, (b) that there is some burden to provide context (I am not beholden to those who are not my audience... why should anyone be?) and (c) not sufficiently accomplished by the asking of the question... you still have not explained, in any way shape or form, why you jumped in the way you did. I also believe that we have a dual responsibility: firstly. to understand, secondly to try and be understood. You seem to oscillate between agreeing with and rejecting that dual responsibility so as long as you keep asking for people to be spoon-fed, to abrogate these responsibilities or fail to see the difference between context and showing where something came from, we're never going to agree.

Conversations ought to be natural. I should've quit when this was just surreal and absurd, rather than sad. Adieu.

You clearly have no problem not responding to parts of posts, so why on earth have you responded to something which has no need for further response? (Although, as you can see in Dudo of St Quentin, your assertion is not true if you read in "retrospective prophecies" for ""prediction"".)

Such a concept misses the point of the word "prediction." If this isn't the angle you were going for, you could have immediately said "it wasn't meant as a prediction" and left it at that.

I'm not going to respond to any more comments about this. If you want to pretend that people can't use words in ways that contrast with their typical meaning for reasons that have already been explained to you, that's your choice but it hasn't been something in need of response since I first pointed this out.

And I mean all aspects of this thread of our conversation.

If that's the case, you did a terrible job of conveying it.

You still misrepresented what was being said. And in so doing, you have reminded everyone reading why it's important to quote or link to the relevant context, rather than merely "describing" it.

A disingenuous description. If something is ambiguous it is because there are at least two honest interpretations. Also, again, that's not what context is. If you ignore my distinction between footnotes and context again...

Here's the sentence: "this thread has thousands [...] if they all read through the whole thing". And that was within a paragraph of much ambiguity

Ambiguity means you ask for clarification, not put words in people's mouths.

Firstly, notice what I actually wrote... it's not split up into chunks like this. Stop doing that. You're confusing yourself, you're confusing me and frankly I've pointed this out enough times (twice) that it's starting look like you're deliberately creating this room to confuse. Stop making it look I've said separate things by removing the explanations from the topic sentences/characterisations. Hilariously, it's not funny at all (see: predictions conversation), I'm complaining about your destabilising actual context.

Secondly, once you notice what I actually wrote (and remind yourself what context is), the suggestion being made is that we have a sentence that seems to say something, when I look at the rest of the paragraph nothing in it makes me think that it doesn't say that. In fact, the way the English language works is that you read whole paragraphs (although, as we have established, you don't) and it is possible that something later in a paragraph clarifies the paragraph's meaning.* The ambiguity is created when you tell me that you're trying to say something else.

Thirdly, your argument in that thread is, as far as I am aware, known as projection. Basically, it's the same argument some historians offer for the Salem Witch Trials... i.e. the adults read their own concerns in a behavioural pattern they noticed.** But this ignores all sorts of things. For one that we, as authors, are able to guide meaning and that we, as authors, create the room for interpretation... we wanted to say something, we failed to say it (at least to all people). That's a failure of communication created by us. This isn't some "of course you'd say that", because I've been saying it the whole time:

"I guess, ultimately, I'm human and I want to know that what I am saying is operating on the same plane as what is hearing what I am saying. This is how communication works... and to know this we kinda need to know where you're coming from. Otherwise I may as well start learning, say, Cook Island Maori and only writing posts in that."

"If you don't understand something and it isn't written badly, then the problem is on your end and you have to do something about it (personal responsibility is a part of intellectual honesty)."

There are counter arguments to this, such as that described by Gabrielle Spiegel: "Such a view of language as constituting impersonal codes governing individual expression radically disturbs traditional notions of the author as a centred subject, in conscious control and responsible for her own utterances. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Roland Barthes declared all authors "dead." What remains as the literary work, from a semiotic perspective, is not an autonomous expression of a centred, speaking subject, but coded texts and the multiple readings to which they are susceptible." But I disagree with them (or, at least, that one)... and if you want to continue this particular theme, create another thread. (History, Historicism, and the Social Logic of the Text in the Middle Ages, pp. 61-2.)

But, as I have explained, ambiguity was perceived later. Maybe because I projected. Maybe not. What is there to make me think that I need to ask for clarification? The only reason why it is ambiguous is because you don't seem to follow any of the norms generally used to facilitate meaning.

*At school we were told to follow the TEER structure. Basically, Topic Sentence (what the paragraph is about, Explanation (sustaining the point established), Example/Evidence (an aspect of sustenance) and Relevance (which means the paragraph isn't left floating). The beginnings and ends of stuff are also more noticeable than middles... they've got power.

**I am giving you an example to understand how I understand the concept, which may not be correct. That's the context. If I tell you where this is from, incidentally Boyer and Nissenbaum's Salem Possessed, that's a footnote because it's ultimately about showing you how I came to think of something and seeing if you agree. It's a kind of context (despite my harsh words above), that of my ideas, but it's not what's being talked about here.

*Also, pay attention to what I didn't include: "until it makes sense". I shouldn't need to include this as it is clear that one is reading until one destranges something, but it would have been very helpful if I had.

And as noted before, I don't count on others to make sense to me.

Wow.

You should, however, count on others to make sense to themselves. That's the bit that matters and while it isn't always true, it's true so often no reasonable person would expect it not to be true.

The biggest moral I hope any lurkers are getting out of this is that it's easy to be confused when you don't engage with the whole.

So who gets to say what "the whole" is? Sure, technically people are responding within the comment chain (for which they've no idea how long it is) but even assuming they ALL went to the trouble to go through all that, (instead of, you know, one person going to the trouble to quote and/or link to something they know how to find) you've no idea what they're referring to outside the comment chain, or how it affected how the two involved in the comment chain interpreted each others' posts (ie. if someone spoke vaguely of what people in the thread are "generally" saying which by your standard would be good enough) and that kind of makes objectively defining "the whole" rather murky.

Who gets to say what the whole is? Well...

In this particular case, "the whole" was yet another reference to the problems caused by splitting paragraphs up. I'm not entirely clear why I thought it was appropriate there but after the fact it makes sense. Because, by excluding the context, you've left "the whole" floating rather. If you'd quoted the whole thing or responded to the point that was being made/pointed out it doesn't really seem to fit there in relation to your point (as opposed to what you did) then it takes on a very different meaning... the intended one.

I'm beginning to wonder what you even think this conversation is about. Someone said something strange. Someone asked a question (to that person) asking if they'd really said that (look at the quote chain, search some search terms... i.e. exactly how participants will find it). Some third person, the only one we know confused by what was going on, says something WHICH MADE NO SENSE to the querier. We don't disagree that footnoting is useful. We disagree that it is (a) equivalent to context, (b) that there is some burden to provide context (I am not beholden to those who are not my audience... why should anyone be?) and (c) not sufficiently accomplished by the asking of the question... you still have not explained, in any way shape or form, why you jumped in the way you did.

Anyway, I digress. The whole is generally obvious. There is a reason to read posts as a whole and then respond to paragraphs. You read the paragraph as a whole. You read the sentence as a whole, in its wholes. Imagine you quoted this paragraph as "read posts". I mean, wow, look my articulation, look at the destruction of coherency (if you suppose I ever had it). The whole point is that we're dealing with something which doesn't seem to make sense... the specific thing itself gives clues as to its nature. You can see where it fits in context by starting out from the various wholes it can embody. I would be surprised if you needed to read the whole conversation for something to make sense (maybe any aspect of these posts requires this) but it's a risk that is theoretically taken... and there's nothing wrong with this. Because, you know what, if it still makes no sense, the easiest thing for anyone to do, is ask a question. But maybe Novorobo's answering in which case, as I am learning, tough potatoes.

Which glosses over the ability to determine whether or not something is reasonable (you know, a necessary implication of your earlier position: "the best we can hope for is an argument that is within the bounds of reason").

It's not a contradiction.

Your narrative implies we can pick and choose about whether or not to "believe" someone on this site based on your prior ideas of what you consider reasonable.

My narrative is more along the lines of "if we're so sure what is or isn't reasonable, why would we need to draw upon others' unproven claims at all? If we aren't, on what basis do we pick and choose?"

No, "my narrative" is, in fact, an argument (perhaps a quibble). And the argument is that we're able to determine what is reasonable... not who is reasonable... based on all sorts of things. This can extend to the person. Is it reasonable to trust the person? Well, I'm familiar with these people. It can be about what is offered (the Venusian Jo example). But the reasonable person test is objective... subjectively influenced but utterly foreign to "picking and choosing" except insofar as it is an extremely odd (disingenuously so?) synonym for discernment... and the application of something similar (reasonable idea test?) is, woah, contextual (i.e. dependent on the information available to us). In any case, there is no defined set {all the reasonable ideas} that we scan to see if an idea is an element thereof.

You misunderstood an argument and you still don't seem to have got it. I'm clearly unable to explain it to you because somehow it is just too tempting to manhandle my posts.

As I certainly intended to say (can't be bothered checking to see if I did say it), when I ask for clarification, it's because I need it and being told to look at a post which raises several points is not going to help me.

My mistake, it wasn't in the same post, just a few more ahead...

Hey, just because I'm lazy, doesn't mean everyone else is. Even so, I don't always mean everything I say. Hell, my prior invoking of ad hominem flies in the face of this very conversation, to say nothing of exaggerating the extents of some opinions. For and against the narrative that the death penalty is a valuable deterrent, for instance, when I'm actually more so on the fence about it.

If NSers were such experts on spotting contradictions, they'd have noticed those.

EDIT: And now I realized I got "for" and "against" backwards and didn't realize as much until just now. I'll leave it as it is, though, to prove I didn't edit anything into that post after this one.

What are those? What contradictions? How is this relevant to any of the probably dozens of points raised. The longer you spent not clarifying the more confusing it is... because I am now trying to figure this out too. Editing the post to identify what exactly you're commenting on is actually really, really helpful.

You clearly understood the idea once upon a time.

Again, it's not a contradiction. Even within the thread you linked to, I linked to another one where I used the phrase "participate in some webforum."

Whether or not a politics simulator attracts somewhat different people than webforums as a whole; or the question thereof is enough to justify two threads on the matter of webforum participation; is not the same as whether or not you can reasonably count on people on the Internet meaning what they say, nor whether or not it's reasonable to expect thousands of people to follow a path of unknown length that one person could much more easily make much shorter.

.

You keep saying that. I've shown you empirical reasons that suggest otherwise. The claim is not supported in light of that evidence... it becomes far less reasonable, and in our contexts, it is unreasonable now.

The point has nothing to do with what people are attracted. It has everything to do with every facet of the forum. For someone who says a lot about context, you seem to entirely ignore it whenever it matters.

[Novorobo]

Yeah, this argument with Forsher hasn't really been going anywhere new, so I don't feel compelled to address what's in the spoiler tags, which is longwinded even for NSG, let alone a participant who seems to be implying he/she is about to drop the matter. But before I drop it myself I'd like to reiterate the aspects of this that stood out to me:

1. "Reason to lie" =/= "reason to lie that NSG participants would anticipate."

2. "Makes sense to me" =/= "makes sense to the other person," as it is not an inherently objective measure.

3. "Few said they were confused by refusal to link to the context" =/= "certainty that few of them were."

4. "Lack of personal experience" =/= "zero reason to have sound reasoning on the subject."

5. One's reputation or lack thereof for sexual desirability is not equivalent to one's position on the social pecking order, but it's closely connected. It is no coincidence that implying a lack thereof is often used as a generic put-down; and on the Internet, it's one that can neither be proven nor disproven. Therefore, "wrong about whether or not that's what was happening in this case" =/= "unreasonable to assume that's what was happening in this case."

[Des-Bal]

Jesus christ you misunderstood a post and then someone explained it to you, there is no conversation here that either of you should be entertaining.

[Frisbeeteria]

The wage gap figure of 23% or so currently given by feminists can be legitimately argued to be too high.

Do you think them lying constantly and business owners knowing it might incline those business leaders not to look into the matter further?

Like me claiming to the police I was raped by barney the dinosaur, if it was just my neighbor.

Gotta say it.
Feminism hurts women too.