Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Buxbaum666]

Bux; Where is your avatar from? It reminds me of something but my 5.25 storage is refusing to respond to search queries .

http://capmoreno.deviantart.com/art/Out-of-my-mind-138193499

I wanted to say something in relation to the discussion on sexism in the shitcanned thread:

I had at one point posted this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

I was only having a back and forth with sander at the time, but rather than refute any of the points made in it, somehow it can be discarded because the guy saying it is right-wing, apparently.

Since social justice rhetoric so often defaults to ad hominem arguments when confronted with a direct refutation, for me the debate is over. The judge is out. It's done for.

Sander did not discard the points because the guy is a conservative. He did mention the latter fact but not in the way you paint it here: "Also for someone who insists he's not an American conservative, you do have an odd tendency to cite hardline American conservatives (which is what Thomas Sowell is) in support of your points. "

 

[Akratus]

And it was as incorrect then as it is now

Is not a much better refutation though.

 

[Buxbaum666]

The gender pay gap is real, in the sense that women genuinely do earn less than men. This is not just my "radical third-wave feminism" (man if you think this is radical...), but simple academic consensus. Go read some scientific literature on gender and racial disparities. Go read some historic literature on the causes and effects of sexism on society. What I'm espousing here is not a remotely controversial view among scientists who have studied these issues. Yet you pretend that what I'm saying is completely impossible.

As an example: all of the things you have to control for to make the gender pay gap disappear, exist as a result of a culture that views women and men differently. To make this point absolutely clear: if we control for aspects such as education, and tenure, and tendency to leave work to raise children, and the types of work engaged in back in the 1910s, we would also see a much smaller gender wage gap than is generally presented. But that doesn't mean the gender pay gap wasn't real back then, nor does it mean there was no gendered culture. Because the fact that women engaged in different work was a result of a sexist culture. The fact that women were less educated was the result of a sexist culture. The fact that women were expected to leave their jobs to raise children was caused by a sexist culture.

To point at factors like that and then say "hey if we control for these sexist effects in culture, the pay gap disappears!" is to miss the point entirely.

But if you don't want to talk about the gender pay gap, what about other issues? What about the lack of female representation in politics (much worse in the U.S. than most of Europe, incidentally)? What about the different treatments of gender in media, something you yourself admitted is happening? What about the many cultural beliefs relating to fundamental differences between men and women? What about the fact that women are much more at risk of sexual assault? And then there's the fact that if you send in a resume with a female name vs a male name and you will get different results.

These are simple, verifiable facts you can't just wish away.

Is though.

 

[Sander]

Dude, you don't get to pretend that I wrote a two-sentence response that didn't address your point, when it was actually six paragraphs directly addressing your point. And you certainly don't get to do that and then try to take the moral high ground, too. That's insane.

 

[Akratus]

Nah it's not. The guy specifically talks about how men and women earn the same for the same job. Going all "controling for muh things!" doesn't change shit.

"we would also see a much smaller gender wage gap than is generally presented. But that doesn't mean the gender pay gap wasn't real back then, nor does it mean there was no gendered culture. "

He's constantly misrepresenting my arguments to make points. As if I ever said the gender pay gap wasn't real, as if I ever said we don't have a gendered culture.

Putting words in peoples mouths, strawmanning, and fallacies do not a good refutation make. I plead argumentum-ad-alec!

Dude, you don't get to pretend that I wrote a two-sentence response when it was actually six paragraphs, and then take the moral high ground. That's insane.

Seeing as how you're not refuting what he said in the other paragraphs, I have but one thing to say: Love you too, skipper.

you certainly don't get to do that and then try to take the moral high ground, too.

Muh paint skills!

 

[Buxbaum666]

He's constantly misrepresenting my arguments to make points. As if I ever said the gender pay gap wasn't real, as if I ever said we don't have a gendered culture.

Putting words in peoples mouths, strawmanning, and fallacies do not a good refutation make.

Dude, you turned this:

I would say it's closer to four decades old. And it was as incorrect then as it is now (actually more incorrect back then, probably). Also for someone who insists he's not an American conservative, you do have an odd tendency to cite hardline American conservatives (which is what Thomas Sowell is) in support of your points.

The gender pay gap is real, in the sense that women genuinely do earn less than men. This is not just my "radical third-wave feminism" (man if you think this is radical...), but simple academic consensus. Go read some scientific literature on gender and racial disparities. Go read some historic literature on the causes and effects of sexism on society. What I'm espousing here is not a remotely controversial view among scientists who have studied these issues. Yet you pretend that what I'm saying is completely impossible.

As an example: all of the things you have to control for to make the gender pay gap disappear, exist as a result of a culture that views women and men differently. To make this point absolutely clear: if we control for aspects such as education, and tenure, and tendency to leave work to raise children, and the types of work engaged in back in the 1910s, we would also see a much smaller gender wage gap than is generally presented. But that doesn't mean the gender pay gap wasn't real back then, nor does it mean there was no gendered culture. Because the fact that women engaged in different work was a result of a sexist culture. The fact that women were less educated was the result of a sexist culture. The fact that women were expected to leave their jobs to raise children was caused by a sexist culture.

To point at factors like that and then say "hey if we control for these sexist effects in culture, the pay gap disappears!" is to miss the point entirely.

But if you don't want to talk about the gender pay gap, what about other issues? What about the lack of female representation in politics (much worse in the U.S. than most of Europe, incidentally)? What about the different treatments of gender in media, something you yourself admitted is happening? What about the many cultural beliefs relating to fundamental differences between men and women? What about the fact that women are much more at risk of sexual assault? And then there's the fact that if you send in a resume with a female name vs a male name and you will get different results.

These are simple, verifiable facts you can't just wish away.

into:

I was only having a back and forth with sander at the time, but rather than refute any of the points made in it, somehow it can be discarded because the guy saying it is right-wing, apparently.

Which is so far from the truth I don't think you believed it yourself. And now you go on complaining about how misrepresenting arguments is wrong? Just how is it possible to suffer such cognitive dissonance without actually bursting into flames from the inner conflict?

Also

As if I ever said the gender pay gap wasn't real

The "paygap" and inequality in modern jobs and economics when it coems to women is a myth based on twisted facts:

"Myth based on twisted facts" <> "not real"? Is it a real myth based on true twisted facts?

 

[Akratus]

Well I specifically meant the idea that women are somehow suffering from inequality, because of a paygap, but I didnt really state it correctly, I admit.

And okay, rather than him discarding what he says because he's right-wing, he discards what he actually says to make an argument that doesn't work, whoopdiedoo!

Anyway, the debate is over guys, remember? Oh wait, now we're debating about the debate. :trollface:

 

[Sander]

I was addressing Sowell's point. He's saying women are getting the same money for the same job, if we correct for education, age, tenure etc. That wasn't true when he wrote it, and it's not true now. Like, that's just factually incorrect. But aside from that point, even if that were actually true, that doesn't mean there's no "institutional effect" (Sowell's words). He's trying to say that we can abstract all those effects away, but that's missing the point that all of those effects are part of the institutions! That those effects are not objective results of some natural state, but a cultural product. That yes, there are genuine institutional problems in those places of business and elsewhere that lead to these problems.

That was the point I was making.

Also, before you cry "straw man" again, here's the sentence I was quoting, the one you wrote, ostensibly based on Sowell's video:
"The "paygap" and inequality in modern jobs and economics when it coems to women is a myth based on twisted facts:"

I was replying directly to that and Sowell's point, pointing out that the pay gap isn't based on "twisted facts", but that it was real -- and why exactly those twisted facts are not twisted.

 

[SnapSlav]

Thanks for the reminder that Thomas Sowell exists, by the way. I always get a kick out of listening to him, even in the few instances where he challenges me. It's simply delightful to listen to someone who uses logic and evidence to form his arguments MAKE SENSE rather than the opposite, people using emotion and agenda talking self-righteous gibberish.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Well I specifically meant the idea that women are somehow suffering from inequality, because of a paygap, but I didnt really state it correctly, I admit.

So there is a paygap but it's somehow not inequality, that's just a myth based on twisted facts. It's okay that there's a paygap and women should be perfectly happy with that.

And okay, rather than him discarding what he says because he's right-wing, he discards what he actually says to make an argument that doesn't work, whoopdiedoo!

tl;dr: You're trying to discard Sander's arguments by misrepresenting what he said, because you don't like it.

Anyway, the debate is over guys, remember? Oh wait, now we're debating about the debate. :trollface:

So you specifically mentioned something from the old thread, completely misrepresented someone else's arguments in the process and now declare the debate over because you won their arguments weren't worth shit anyway.

 

[SnapSlav]

Dear God... They're multiplying!

 

[Akratus]

So here's the deal: When Sander and I are discussing, we're not actually discussing the facts. We're discussing interpretation. We do not actually disagree on what is true vis-a-vis science and information, we disagree on the conclusion.

What I'm saying is: Equality of opportunity is equality. What sander is saying is: If it's not close enough to 50-50 it gives me an excuse to be an ideologue.

 

[Sander]

So here's the deal: When Sander and I are discussing, we're not actually discussing the facts. We're discussing interpretation. We do not actually disagree on what is true vis-a-vis science and information, we disagree on the conclusion.

What I'm saying is: Equality of opportunity is equality. What sander is saying is: If it's not close enough to 50-50 it gives me an excuse to be an ideologue.

What I'm saying is that actual equality of opportunity is a lot further away, and requires a lot more adjustments than you think.

 

[Crni Vuk]

what's your interpetration of the paygap then? I guess gravity is also subject to interpretation. It is, afterall, just a theory.

Com on Akratos. This really isnt rocket surgery.

 

[Akratus]

Of course it isn't. My interpretation of the paygap is that it's for the most part perfectly natural. If women have the choice to commit to well-paying careers, but on average most do not, where is the problem? Empowerment of women also means respecting their choices. And it's not even that I would resist any change in this, or think it should stay that way. That's the way it is now, in the future natural change will happen or it won't and I won't care either way.

 

[Sander]

Of course it isn't. My interpretation of the paygap is that it's for the most part perfectly natural. If women have the choice to commit to well-paying careers, but on average most do not, where is the problem?

Choices are not made in a vacuum. When a woman chooses not to enter engineering because culture tells her it's not a woman's job, that's a problem. When she doesn't go into IT because it doesn't have a friendly work environment for women, that's a problem. When she doesn't have a background in chemistry because culture told her at twelve years old that science is a male interest, that's a problem. When she doesn't go into investment banking because it's man's world, that's a problem. When she's the one who quits her job to take care of the kids rather than her husband simply because that's what society expects to happen, that's a problem.

And we know all of those decisions are heavily influenced by culture and not "natural", because we have cross-country and historical comparisons which show massive differences in these choices. Just one example:



(source: http://www.oecd.org/education/48111145.pdf, 16)

And now you'll say that of course you agree that all those specific examples are bad, which is what you've done for 80 pages whenever a specific example is given. And then you won't change your opinion one iota. The problem is that you refuse to connect those specific examples with each other, and with all of the evidence of systemic problems, like the gender pay gap. Instead you blame the pay gap on "choice", which to you ends the discussion, whereas to me and other feminists that's only the beginning of the conversation.

Not to mention that that's simply incorrect, and direct discrimination is absolutely part of the gender pay gap.

 

[TheWesDude]

the problem is that both sides are correct within the scope of the argument they are making.

women as a whole make less than men as a whole.

women in the same positions as men make roughly equal to more than men.

so why is there such a dichotomy? the answer boils down to the choices the individuals make, and their inherent aptitude/drive for their position.

look at dental hygienists and child daycare workers. men are actively discriminated against in favor of women for physical reasons in the case of dental hygienists, and in the case of child daycare workers men are criminally discriminated against. dental offices have discovered that as they started hiring women, their customers preferred and would even delay dental appointments to make sure they got the female one, and people would actively schedule to avoid male hygienists because women have smaller hands. that is not something men have any control over, its a function of biology. but what is a dentist who owns/runs his own office supposed to do? pander to his clients or tell them to STFU and ignore their preferences with rational backing? eventually he will find its far easier to just only hire women dental hygienists and fire men. in the case of child daycare workers, women are much more so preferred here because of cultural sexism that treats women as "caregivers" and men who want to do this job as suspicious for having a criminal intent for wanting to be around kids all the time. the argument could even be made that the law backs this sexism and discrimination because men get much harsher treatment for "sexual crimes" than women do. look at these "teacher sex scandals" which it seems lately the are far more cases of women teachers having sex with male students than the male teachers having sex with female students. and when you look at the punishments, women get a lower bar of punishment for the same crime. this is further reinforced by the feminist motto's and slogans of "teach men to not rape" and treating "all men are potential rapists" as a valid reason for anything.

so there is a case where men are discriminated against for physical biology in favor of women. who would really enjoy the idea of a huge ham-fisted man digging around in your mouth when there is a woman right next to them with small dainty hands?

and there is also a case where men are discriminated against because of the presumption of guilt or criminal motive in wanting to be around children.

and yet, when you look at the reverse, there is no massive complaint that there are not more women doing jobs such as long haul truckers or ironworkers or commercial construction and such.

there are numerous complaints about not enough women in STEM ( science, technology, engineering, medical ) and financial and CEO positions and fields. nowadays the actual institutionalized discrimination against women is largely gone and yet we still do not have large participation. so the first thing to look at is higher education. there are numerous data sources saying women are over 50% of enrollees, and even quite a few that put it at over 60%. so its not lack of opportunity for getting a higher education. then look at programs for scholarships/grants/loans and you see that for these fields there are many such programs that offer for women and minorities. so its looking pretty bleak for denying them opportunity in the education arena. then you look at major breakdowns by gender, and here is where you start to see the problem, especially if you follow through to graduation. so women are simply not entering these STEM+financial programs/majors.

the numbers are out there, they are not hard to find. in fact public schools are required to publish these numbers AFAIK. so the causal factor of denial of opportunity is eliminated, in fact you could even argue that women have greater opportunity to enter these fields. so why are women not entering these fields? THIS is where the argument for cultural/societal discrimination can be entertained. the cultural discrimination of women choosing to not enter STEM fields. is there a way to fix it? short of forcing women to enter these programs/majors, i do not see how to change it.

so women are the majority of college/university population, and are choosing not to enter these fields. this creates a situation where you can have more jobs every year in STEM than qualified people to take those jobs, and then there is the "hidden" factor of aptitude/ability. so as more positions open every year, and as male participation drops for college/university population, the more in-demand these jobs will become, the higher they will pay. simple economics. a lack of qualified people drives wages up for that job. the solution the Tech industry has come up with is to import them from foreign countries to meet their demand, and import them to the point where it creates an over-abundance to drive down wages rather than the continual upward trend to make it cheaper.

if women are simply not entering these fields as their choice, then NOT correcting for this would be intellectually dishonest. you MUST correct for personal choices. otherwise you stop comparing apples to apples, and instead are comparing apples to beets. so what exactly are these "wage gap" comparisons comparing in their greatest diversity?

i have said it before, and i shall say it again.
77% = microsoft CEO in WA to mcdonalds woman line cook in alabama ( is this an honest comparison? )
86% = mcdonalds male store owner in times square NY to mcdonalds woman line cook in alabama ( is this an honest comparison? )
92% = mcdonalds male line cook in a 5 star restaurant in CA to mcdonalds woman line cook in alabama ( is this an honest comparison? )
98% = mcdonalds male line cook in WA to mcdonalds womanline cook in alabama ( is this an honest comparison? )
106% = mcdonalds male line cook in alabama to mcdonalds woman line cook in alabama ( is this an honest comparison? )
112% = mcdonalds male line cook in alabama to mcdonalds woman line cook in the same store ( is this an honest comparison? )

to break it down where these numbers came from:
77% = straight male to female total IRS reported income by gender ( 1 control )
86% = related industry comparison ( 2-3 controls )
92% = industry comparison ( 4-5 controls )
98% = job comparison ( 7-8 controls )
106% = job + county comparison ( 10-15 controls )
109%-112% = job + zip code comparison ( 20+ controls )

which "wage gap" figure you accept is the level of "honesty" you want or care about.


unfortunately, until women can overcome their self-inflicted cultural sexism/discrimination, this problem will not be "solved".

i think it was 1-2 months ago one of the playboy "bunnies" wrote a piece on her growing up. she talked about how when she was young, her parents bought a computer and a few games. she talked about how she loved playing games, especially those story driven games created by women and even specifically mentioned roberta williams and the kings quest games. then as she got into junior high school she noticed how few people played computer games and instead did other things like go to the mall, go shopping, and do cheerleading. she wanted to be one of the "cool kids". so she put away the computer and started focusing on clothes and makeup and by her junior and senior year she was a cheerleader. and then when she got to college, she thought about going back to computers and doing a computer science degree, but instead all the "cool kids" were doing stuff like marketing and business administration. so she turned away from computers yet again. near the end of her article she laments her constant and frequent choices to move away from computers because they werent what the cool kids were doing.

her desire to fit in and be popular with the cool kids is why she left computers/gaming.

to her, i would ask, was abandoning computers and gaming worth denying your "self" and would you do it all over again? i dont remember if she effectively answered that question.

so what is my point? you cant eliminate that. it will take a long time to overcome. if it can even BE overcome.

i believe in choices and consequences. if you choose not to enter a field that pays 4-5 millions dollars a year, then you have zero right to complain that you are not making 4-5 million dollars a year for working part time at a day care center.


holy shit that turned into a huge fucking wall-o-text didnt it.

 

[Akratus]

-snip-

Fuck my post, go read TheWesDude's!

 

[Sander]

women in the same positions as men make roughly equal to more than men.

This is just factually incorrect. You may be able to find specific instances where this is true, but taken over the population as a whole, this is bullshit. There is no scientific study that finds this (which would be why you never cite one and just blandly state numbers instead), and even those that want to explain away the gender pay gap (like this Heritage article) *still* arrive at a number of women earning 95-97% of what men do, even after controlling for a multitude of factors.

And yes, as I keep saying and saying and saying and saying forever and ever and ever, gendered culture also influences and limits men. That's part of feminist theory.

I also find it hilarious that you go over several examples of how culture influences choice and still go "yeah well but it's just a choice".

 

[Crni Vuk]

Your complete lunacy in generalizing women's choices is idiotic. This is cultural marxism in all it's mind boggling irrationality. You're saying that simply because a lot of women don't do a thing, culture is forcing this upon them, and that's always bad, because sexism. You're literally speaking for an entire gender here, glossing over all personal choices in there, all the personal preferences, all the biology, all the circumstances just so you can go: "Aha! Sexism!"

what do you call it then when someone tells you that you should not study science because it's maybe too "strange" for a female mind, or when someone tells you that you should not join the military because its a male's territory? Or what do you call it when advertising and modern pop-culture objectify females?