LGBT community

[Maxxie]

@RooR
Two thousand years ago, it was important for a country and empire to be somewhat self-sufficient, because there wasn't the global infrastructure we have now. So these days, it's far less important to be entirely self-sufficient. The problem the US has is that it's far too reliant on Chinese products, and China owns most of it's debt, rather than actually being self-sufficient. In fact, I think the only way a country could be entirely self-sufficient, and still maintain the level of luxury we enjoy, is through slave labour - unless there's an example of one that I'm completely unaware of. So for that reason, I think a global economy is largely a good thing. You should, in general, be careful of bombastic individuals who promise self-sufficiency.

 

Totally behind you on the prisons, and the war on drugs, and the middle east. I feel like someone more left-wing is better positioned to deal with these issues though (I don't mean the Dems though, because by European standards, they're hella right wing ) I've always thought that the problem with US politics is that everyone is corrupt. And the corruption is legal! If you scrap private prisons, there'll no longer be a cash incentive on incarceration, so the prison population will drop. The war on drugs is just nonsense. And I have no clue how to do anything about the middle east.

Just a point of information though, I'm very left-wing, and I also agree about political correctness. It just puts up barriers. However, I think that sometimes people hate it because it means it's not socially acceptable to say really offensive things anymore.

[Maxxie]

1 hour ago, Kumaresh said:

I don't think anti LGBT sentiment is present much in America, except for some religious organizations. Much higher here in India though. Being furious at the world solves nothing, only makes a person less capable of behaving and thinking in a cool, calm headed and rational manner. The reason I talked about generalization is that it is the major cause of a lot of discrimination. Haters generalize all people of a certain group into a negative stereotype. For e.g. That group has wronged me (now or for a long time ) or I believe that group is immoral so I'm gonna hate all of the people of that group without looking at the people of that group as an individual. Hate is like fire that you are holding in your hands, intending to throw it at others, but you get burned yourself. Could you name a few ways in which people of the LGBT community are discriminated against in America today ? 

I don't live in the US, so I don't have a full picture. However, they are discriminated in terms of marriage, adoption, assaults, abuse, etc. Same as a lot of western countries, although I imagine it is significantly worse in the US than it is in the UK or here in Denmark.

I didn't say being furious helped, but if people were able to just turn off their fury, then they would rarely be furious in the first place  . You're right though, hate is a terrible thing - especially when it's aimed at an entire group. Though it usually comes from fear. Groups that are discriminated against normally represent something that people are afraid of, whether rational or irrational.

[Maxxie]

3 hours ago, wcreek said:

@RooR

With the Democratic Party and the left in general being very SJW/Feminazi/Misandrist, it really makes it hard for me to sympathize with them. I think we need to do more to help people get out of poverty but also realize that any person regardless of race can be hit hard by poverty. Yes statistically some races are more likely to be impoverished but why is that? Could it be family life in those communities? Because I have a hard time believing it's evil whites or evil white men preventing people who aren't white from getting a decent paying job as there's the civil rights act of 1964 and well I'm not aware of any employer that isn't an equal opportunity employer. Which I don't think affirmative action is the best way to approach things either.

 

Some of what Trump says I think isn't great but I find it sort of grotesque how people think he'd cause a war when Hillary seemingly wants to go to war with Russia. The worst things I think Trump wants to do is to try to restrict abortion. What he's said about Muslims and Mexicans or otherwise illegal immigrants. Idk what to think.

  Reveal hidden contents

Now I know it's not her actually suggesting a war with Russia or China, but it's pretty damn close and I'm pretty sure that's not what Trump wants to do.

 

I don't have a problem with the people who practice islam as long as they either are tolerant of LGBT people or supportive of LGBT people, which is a long shot for a variety of reasons, my problem is with Islam but it's not just Islam, I take issue with Christianity and Judaism too, doesn't mean I have an issue with those who are faithful to that religion, I just disagree with their religion because I'm an agnostic atheist and I think religion is a burden that would best to not exist any more but making that a reality isn't really practical or kind.

 

As far as what Trump said about illegal immigrants, I think people who come here undocumented or otherwise illegally should be given a second chance to be here legally, though from some statistic I found a while back the estimated number of illegal immigrants has gone down, but idk. I don't think he'd really build a wall since it seemed he backpedaled tremendously on that. 

 

I also think cannabis/weed should be legalized...

 

Gary Johnson, seems like an okay option though I disagree with some stuff he's said.

 

Jill Stein well, idk she seems like an okay option too.

Outside of the US, Trump represents a very real reminder of 1930s Germany. This isn't an example of Godwin's law, for anyone who would say so. There are extremely clear parallels, and it's pretty scary.

Clinton is also a pretty awful candidate, and I get really annoyed by the rebranding that paints her as some sort of liberal hero, or cool candidate. It really winds me up that people seem to be supporting her on the basis of her gender.

Yeh, Obama has been pretty fierce with his deportations so the number has drastically fallen during his presidency. I think Trump has backpedalled on the wall because he wouldn't be able to build it, but he's so changeable, I have no idea what he's planning.

In terms of the race divide with poverty, it's an issue that has just compounded over the years. The civil rights act definitely wasn't the end of racism and discrimination in the US. The problem is that it's really difficult to have any sort of upward social mobility in the US, so black families who were poor tend to stay poor.

(Maybe I'm being an idiot, but why is being an SJW a bad thing? Isn't being pro-social justice generally a good thing?)

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Maxxie said:

(Maybe I'm being an idiot, but why is being an SJW a bad thing? Isn't being pro-social justice generally a good thing?)

It's mostly how extreme they are. Nothing is ever good enough for them, it's always about them and their feelings, they comment about the smallest flaws in something, they blow things way out of proportion, they bring up your past and act like you can never get better, basically all of these:

 

 

And yet, somehow people opposed to them and their extremism are the toxic people when they themselves meet every single one of these.

[Maxxie]

2 minutes ago, Daring said:

It's mostly how extreme they are. Nothing is ever good enough for them, it's always about them and their feelings, they comment about the smallest flaws in something, they blow things way out of proportion, they bring up your past and act like you can never get better, basically all of these:

 

 

 

And yet, somehow people opposed to them and their extremism are the toxic people when they themselves meet every single one of these.

I think I get you, so basically someone who's not going to accept anything other than the position they hold, and if you don't hold it then you're a monster?

[Nowak]

Just now, Maxxie said:

I think I get you, so basically someone who's not going to accept anything other than the position they hold, and if you don't hold it then you're a monster?

Yup.

 

They're also highly sexist and racist, but, again, lack the self-awareness to realize that they are the very same people they claim to hate.

[Maxxie]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

I agree with what you have said. But the reason why people have negative connotations about SJWs is that they make mountains out of molehills by exaggeration minor issues or pretending where there are issues when there really aren't. For example, when many oppressed communities don't have good access to education, healthcare or even personal safety, The SJWs are instead concentrating on issues such as micro aggressions, safe spaces, hula dolls, white people with hair braids, the presence of white people, non existent gender pay gap, etc. They can't tolerate people with opinions different to theirs and they behave like spoilt five year olds. Even if they have the best of intentions, their method of execution is very poor. Many of them are delusional. Can't type a more elaborate answer on my phone right now, sorry

At the universities I've been at, we've had problems with people wanting safe spaces. It's total BS, a university is no place for an intellectual safe space.

Non-existent gender pay gap? Really? Do you honestly believe it's non-existent?  I can give you examples where I have been paid more than women for the same job. It's definitely a real thing, and yes - it's a problem. The rest of the stuff is silly, I agree, but let's not bury our heads in the sand .

[Maxxie]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

Which country do you live in ? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't exist or is negligibly small in USA. Don't know about other countries though. The reason I say it is the fine print. They claim that for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns only 79 cents doing the exact same job and working the exact same hours. The total salaries of working men and women were added separately and then divided separately by the number of people of that sex in the workforce. So when they compared these two numbers, it came out to be a ratio of 1:0.79. So the average salary of a man in general is more than that of a woman. However, This does not account for the individual positions, the no of hours spent on work or any other factors. Anecdotal evidence can't outweigh empirical data. If such a gap existed, it would be illegal due to the equal pay act and could be brought to a court of law and people can be persecuted. All this data is for the US though. I can't comment on your country. Could you give me the examples ? I'm interested to hear them.

I've lived in Switzerland, England, Germany, and now Denmark. I've worked in Germany and England, and I have seen the pay gap. My boyfriend is from the US, and his mum does not get paid the same as colleagues in a comparable position. I've worked at an engineering company where I was paid more than the girl I shared my office with - she had the same job as me, as well. I did a brief stint with a cheminformatics company, where female scientists were not paid as much as men at the same level. I worked for a chemical production company as well - same issues.

My mum has seen it too, she was the only female director at her place, and also the least well paid - despite having the third most senior position. It's everywhere - it's not made up!

You don't have to tell me that anecdotal evidence can't outweight empirical evidence, I'm well aware of that - but you just gave the evidence. The pay gap is illegal, but it's not enforced. There is a big stigma on causing legal issues for the company you work at, especially at a higher level.

[TheElt]

13 minutes ago, Maxxie said:

Non-existent gender pay gap? Really? Do you honestly believe it's non-existent?  I can give you examples where I have been paid more than women for the same job. It's definitely a real thing, and yes - it's a problem. The rest of the stuff is silly, I agree, but let's not bury our heads in the sand .

Let's say you own a relatively large manufacturing company that's based in the US, and you want to open a new factory somewhere. As a business, you want to make the most money possible, so you decide to pay everyone working in the new factory minimum wage. Oh would you look at that, the wage gap couldn't exist here because that would be illegal (Alongside unequal pay being illegal already) and people would kick off.

 

Let's take another scenario. You have a factory, the average pay for male staff is $15 an hour, and you have about 600 people working there (It's a big factory). You have a 50/50 split of male and female staff, so if the wage gap exists, you only have to pay those women $11.85 per hour for the same work. So your current costs for wages are $8,055 per hour for all your staff. If you fire every single man working for your company and hire only women, you'd save $945 per hour.

 

Do you see why the wage gap is flawed logic? If a company could get away with paying women less, why would they bother hiring men, at all? There isn't a wage gap, there's an earnings gap produced by life choices, it's been debunked so many times. If you see it so often, then tell the police or government or whoever you go to for that thing about it, and that business will be in serious trouble. Because, hint hint, it's illegal

[divided_throwaway]

Why the hell did they have to bring back 50s hair on guys? If I wanted to see 50s hair on guys, I'd so much rather time travel back to that decade. I don't want to feel like I'm going back to the past. I want the edginess in 2000s culture back!

[Maxxie]

1 minute ago, TheElt said:

Let's say you own a relatively large manufacturing company that's based in the US, and you want to open a new factory somewhere. As a business, you want to make the most money possible, so you decide to pay everyone working in the new factory minimum wage. Oh would you look at that, the wage gap couldn't exist here because that would be illegal (Alongside unequal pay being illegal already) and people would kick off.

 

Let's take another scenario. You have a factory, the average pay for male staff is $15 an hour, and you have about 600 people working there (It's a big factory). You have a 50/50 split of male and female staff, so if the wage gap exists, you only have to pay those women $11.85 per hour for the same work. So your current costs for wages are $8,055 per hour for all your staff. If you fire every single man working for your company and hire only women, you'd save $945 per hour.

 

Do you see why the wage gap is flawed logic? If a company could get away with paying women less, why would they bother hiring men, at all? There isn't a wage gap, there's an earnings gap produced by life choices, it's been debunked so many times. If you see it so often, then tell the police or government or whoever you go to for that thing about it, and that business will be in serious trouble. Because, hint hint, it's illegal

At a minimum wage position, the pay gap is irrelevant. But you're just not being honest with yourself if you don't think it's real. At mid to upper level positions, women consistently get paid less for the same job, and yes, it is illegal. But this ridiculous idea that because something is illegal, then a company doesn't do it is just ludicrous . You often are in a position where you can't do anything about it, especially not me when I'm in a junior position - though I have tried in the past, and I often don't get anywhere.

So some companies will have something similar to a non-disclosure clause in their contracts that is designed to make it tricky to discuss pay, it's also difficult to prove that you do *exactly* the same job as somebody else.

The thing is, people don't kick off because there is such a stigma about it. Do you really think that if you took your company to court they would give you a reference for your next job? Do you really think you would survive the next round of layoffs? I don't know where you're getting this idea that the pay gap has been debunked, but it's not true  

What you have to understand, is that it's not an official company policy because, of course, that would be stupid. It's a perception thing of the hiring manager. Women are viewed to be worth less so they get lower offers, women who negotiate are also seen to be trouble makers, so it's harder for them to get a higher salary as well.

[Misanthrope]

51 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I agree with what you have said. But the reason why people have negative connotations about SJWs is that they make mountains out of molehills by exaggeration minor issues or pretending where there are issues when there really aren't. For example, when many oppressed communities don't have good access to education, healthcare or even personal safety, The SJWs are instead concentrating on issues such as micro aggressions, safe spaces, hula dolls, white people with hair braids, the presence of white people, non existent gender pay gap, etc. They can't tolerate people with opinions different to theirs and they behave like spoilt five year olds. Even if they have the best of intentions, their method of execution is very poor. Many of them are delusional. Can't type a more elaborate answer on my phone right now, sorry

Is not just that but the almost unphantomable hypocrisy they display: Constant non-stop talk about Sexism and Patriarchy but the minute you mention "Yeah the Patriarchy is real...In Saudi Arabia" you're an "islamophobic". Even previously rational people that claim to be Atheists like Steve Shives drank the SJW kool aid and now actively defends Islam with extremely lame and transparent rationalizations and apologetics.

 

12 minutes ago, Maxxie said:

At a minimum wage position, the pay gap is irrelevant. But you're just not being honest with yourself if you don't think it's real. At mid to upper level positions, women consistently get paid less for the same job, and yes, it is illegal. But this ridiculous idea that because something is illegal, then a company doesn't do it is just ludicrous . You often are in a position where you can't do anything about it, especially not me when I'm in a junior position - though I have tried in the past, and I often don't get anywhere.

So some companies will have something similar to a non-disclosure clause in their contracts that is designed to make it tricky to discuss pay, it's also difficult to prove that you do *exactly* the same job as somebody else.

The thing is, people don't kick off because there is such a stigma about it. Do you really think that if you took your company to court they would give you a reference for your next job? Do you really think you would survive the next round of layoffs? I don't know where you're getting this idea that the pay gap has been debunked, but it's not true  

What you have to understand, is that it's not an official company policy because, of course, that would be stupid. It's a perception thing of the hiring manager. Women are viewed to be worth less so they get lower offers, women who negotiate are also seen to be trouble makers, so it's harder for them to get a higher salary as well.

If something is not falsifiable then it's not worth discussing: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" All number shows that on the exact same positions women earn almost exactly the same as men. Most of the studies Feminist claim that speak of "71/78 cents per dollar to a men" completely misrepresent specific position and compare only gross income effectively comparing different career paths and positions overall.

 

So this argument of "Miniature pink elephants do exist and are real but they're very timid and nobody can take a picture of them or capture them" is just meaningless.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I kinda understand your views now. What would your proposed solution to the problem be ? I think we should make it illegal to keep everybody's salary a secret. It would be quite difficult to prove that two people are doing the exact same job. But could there be other reasons for companies wanting to pay women less ? I originally thought that the reason is less working hours and the fact that many women want to have children and get paid maternity leave, they might have difficulty working due to their mensgrual cycle ( PMS symptoms are problematic in some women and may hinder their ability to work at maximum potential ), or they may take time off or work from home to take care of their children. Companies would have to undergo sensitization courses, and if even a single woman made claims about a company or its employees, its  reputation would be irreparably slandered. And when opening up male dominated fields to women, they may feel uncomfortable due to the general atmosphere or work culture there. These were my earlier thoughts, I am reconsidering them now. What do you think ?

Companies have been doing all of the above for years. We can't force women into STEM fields it's their choice. All well paid fields are competitive, it's a capitalist society after all. Demanding special treatment is inherently wrong, not to mention you're conceding that there is a wage gap based on no evidence. Since when is absense of evidence evidence of absense?

[Maxxie]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Is not just that but the almost unphantomable hypocrisy they display: Constant non-stop talk about Sexism and Patriarchy but the minute you mention "Yeah the Patriarchy is real...In Saudi Arabia" you're an "homophobic". Even previously rational people that claim to be Atheists like Steve Shives drank the SJW kool aid and now actively defends Islam with extremely lame and transparent rationalizations and apologetics.

 

If something is not falsifiable then it's not worth discussing: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" All number shows that on the exact same positions women earn almost exactly the same as men. Most of the studies Feminist claim that speak of "71/78 cents per dollar to a men" completely misrepresent specific position and compare only gross income effectively comparing different career paths and positions overall.

 

So this argument of "Miniature pink elephants do exist and are real but they're very timid and nobody can take a picture of them or capture them" is just meaningless.

Here is my evidence:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/myth#top

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:The_unadjusted_gender_pay_gap,_2014_(¹)_(difference_between_average_gross_hourly_earnings_of_male_and_female_employees_as_%_of_male_gross_earnings_new.png

There is more, this was just a simple cursory search.

Don't try and pretend there's no evidence, that's just silly  

 

 

6 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I kinda understand your views now. What would your proposed solution to the problem be ? I think we should make it illegal to keep everybody's salary a secret. It would be quite difficult to prove that two people are doing the exact same job. But could there be other reasons for companies wanting to pay women less ? I originally thought that the reason is less working hours and the fact that many women want to have children and get paid maternity leave, they might have difficulty working due to their mensgrual cycle ( PMS symptoms are problematic in some women and may hinder their ability to work at maximum potential ), or they may take time off or work from home to take care of their children. Companies would have to undergo sensitization courses, and if even a single woman made claims about a company or its employees, its  reputation would be irreparably slandered. And when opening up male dominated fields to women, they may feel uncomfortable due to the general atmosphere or work culture there. These were my earlier thoughts, I am reconsidering them now. What do you think ?

I have absolutely no idea how to solve the problem - the pay gap is narrowing, so it's certainly getting better, but the problem is normally the perception of hiring managers.

I think you're right about trying to improve the work atmosphere though, that's certainly a good way forward.

[Maxxie]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Companies have been doing all of the above for years. We can't force women into STEM fields it's their choice. All well paid fields are competitive, it's a capitalist society after all. Demanding special treatment is inherently wrong, not to mention you're conceding that there is a wage gap based on no evidence. Since when is absense of evidence evidence of absense?

You're right about women in STEM - that's something that really winds me up about certain groups of feminists on university campuses. They complain about there being no women in STEM, yet they refuse to study STEM!

[TheElt]

11 minutes ago, Maxxie said:

At a minimum wage position, the pay gap is irrelevant. But you're just not being honest with yourself if you don't think it's real. At mid to upper level positions, women consistently get paid less for the same job, and yes, it is illegal. But this ridiculous idea that because something is illegal, then a company doesn't do it is just ludicrous . You often are in a position where you can't do anything about it, especially not me when I'm in a junior position - though I have tried in the past, and I often don't get anywhere.

So some companies will have something similar to a non-disclosure clause in their contracts that is designed to make it tricky to discuss pay, it's also difficult to prove that you do *exactly* the same job as somebody else.

The thing is, people don't kick off because there is such a stigma about it. Do you really think that if you took your company to court they would give you a reference for your next job? Do you really think you would survive the next round of layoffs? I don't know where you're getting this idea that the pay gap has been debunked, but it's not true  

What you have to understand, is that it's not an official company policy because, of course, that would be stupid. It's a perception thing of the hiring manager. Women are viewed to be worth less so they get lower offers, women who negotiate are also seen to be trouble makers, so it's harder for them to get a higher salary as well.

For a start, you still haven't answered my question. If the wage gap was real, why would companies bother hiring men when they could increase profit margins by hiring more women? Why are there fields of work where men make up the majority of workers? Where's the logic?

 

You can do something about it though, in the UK there's the Government Equalities Office with a contact address and helpline, I'd put my money on them being able to look into any possible causes of inequal pay, and I'd be pretty certain betting on there being a similar service in the US and every other country where there is a law against pay discrimination based on race. And companies do care about the law, you ever see a company offering less than minimum wage, ever? No, because it's illegal and people would complain straight away if they found out.

 

If you can't prove that you do exactly the same job and exactly the same work as someone else, then how can you make the case of the wage gap? What's this thing called asking for a raise? What's this thing called working hard at your job and then asking for rewards for that hard work?

 

But people do kick off, namely uneducated people that insist it exists, and then rant about it on the internet. If I worked at a company, say a desk job answering calls for a company or something and I see that one of my female co-workers is being paid 79% as much as me even though our work would be the same, I would kick off. If legal government action was then taken against that company, I don't really think any new jobs you went to apply for would give a stuff about a reference from them, since the backlash over media would be huge and their reputation would be nothing. I'll just link this, it's been debunked many times.

 

When have you ever applied for a job and seen two different hourly pay rates, one for men and one for women? When you apply for a job, you get paid that starting salary regardless of whatever person you might be, you could be a dyslexic double amputee woman but so long as you can do the job you'd get paid just the same amount as an able-bodied man starting the same job. If you do good work and have a position to negotiate from, then you are fine and well to go and ask for a raise, but you are asking for more money than you're supposed to be getting, that person is under no obligation to actually give you the raise.

[Misanthrope]

14 minutes ago, Maxxie said:

Here is my evidence:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/myth#top

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:The_unadjusted_gender_pay_gap,_2014_(¹)_(difference_between_average_gross_hourly_earnings_of_male_and_female_employees_as_%_of_male_gross_earnings_new.png

There is more, this was just a simple cursory search.

Don't try and pretend there's no evidence, that's just silly  

 

 

I have absolutely no idea how to solve the problem - the pay gap is narrowing, so it's certainly getting better, but the problem is normally the perception of hiring managers.

I think you're right about trying to improve the work atmosphere though, that's certainly a good way forward.

Quote

On average, full-time working women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns. This significant gap is more than a statistic -- it has real life consequences. When women, who make up nearly half the workforce, bring home less money each day, it means they have less for the everyday needs of their families, and over a lifetime of work, far less savings for retirement.

I've seen this quote from the white house. It's doing exactly what I told you: comparing gross income by men vs gross income by women. Doesn't takes into account that far more men enter into far more lucrative career choices.

 

Quote

So why, then, are women in short supply at the top of government and business in the United States?

Simple really: women have the right to vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want. They also have the right to run for office, assmeble into political parties even. If women want more representation from women and less men representation, women need to start voting for women before any serious discussion on this subject can happen. Unless women don't have a right to vote.

 

So moving on to your third link which can actually be confirmed to be a meaningless and unfair comparison just by the mere title of it:

 

Quote

File:The unadjusted gender pay gap, 2014 (¹) (difference between average gross hourly earnings of male and female employees as % of male gross earnings new.png

So for the second time, we cannot force women to take positions they don't want to take. If women want to earn more when it comes to gross income they're welcome to enter into STEM fields and choose career paths that involve greater risks, greater sacrifices to obtain a greater income as the result.

 

I am sorry if women feel unwelcomed in more aggressive, competitive fields. Such is the nature of said fields and career paths that require aggressive and competitive candidates to succeed. It's a profoundly stupid idea to force businesses into being less efficient and generate less revenue overall by choosing inadecuate candidates based on quotas instead of qualifications for the jobs at hand.

[Maxxie]

2 minutes ago, TheElt said:

For a start, you still haven't answered my question. If the wage gap was real, why would companies bother hiring men when they could increase profit margins by hiring more women? Why are there fields of work where men make up the majority of workers? Where's the logic?

 

You can do something about it though, in the UK there's the Government Equalities Office with a contact address and helpline, I'd put my money on them being able to look into any possible causes of inequal pay, and I'd be pretty certain betting on there being a similar service in the US and every other country where there is a law against pay discrimination based on race. And companies do care about the law, you ever see a company offering less than minimum wage, ever? No, because it's illegal and people would complain straight away if they found out.

 

If you can't prove that you do exactly the same job and exactly the same work as someone else, then how can you make the case of the wage gap? What's this thing called asking for a raise? What's this thing called working hard at your job and then asking for rewards for that hard work?

 

But people do kick off, namely uneducated people that insist it exists, and then rant about it on the internet. If I worked at a company, say a desk job answering calls for a company or something and I see that one of my female co-workers is being paid 79% as much as me even though our work would be the same, I would kick off. If legal government action was then taken against that company, I don't really think any new jobs you went to apply for would give a stuff about a reference from them, since the backlash over media would be huge and their reputation would be nothing. I'll just link this, it's been debunked many times.

 

When have you ever applied for a job and seen two different hourly pay rates, one for men and one for women? When you apply for a job, you get paid that starting salary regardless of whatever person you might be, you could be a dyslexic double amputee woman but so long as you can do the job you'd get paid just the same amount as an able-bodied man starting the same job. If you do good work and have a position to negotiate from, then you are fine and well to go and ask for a raise, but you are asking for more money than you're supposed to be getting, that person is under no obligation to actually give you the raise.

If it's been debunked - cite your sources! I've just posted a few links that show evidence of a wage gap.

To answer your question a bit more overtly - it's not necessarily a conscious decision that results in women getting paid less, it's a preconception of the hiring manager, that's why companies don't hire only women.

Companies care about certain laws, because they have to, but whenever a large company can bend the rules - it certainly will. That's just how you maximise profits, though these are normally in ways like paying bribes, tax evasion, poor safety regulation, etc.

I didn't say that you couldn't prove it, I said that companies make it difficult to prove. Also, there is a perception about women and negotiation - they are far less likely to be successful when negotiating for a raise.

With this uneducated people thing, I am willing to bet that I'm quite well educated  . There is a stigma about discussing pay openly, that's not something that should come as a surprise to you. And people DO kick off, but there isn't a media stink because this isn't news. This has been the case since women have been in the office - where is the news?!

I also don't apply for jobs with an hourly wage. But, once again, the wage gap isn't a conspiracy by big companies - it's a perception that results in women being offered a lower salary.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, Maxxie said:

If it's been debunked - cite your sources! I've just posted a few links that show evidence of a wage gap.

I addressed said links: gross income vs gross income is a meaningless statistic: we cannot force women into more lucrative careers.

[Maxxie]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I've seen this quote from the white house. It's doing exactly what I told you: comparing gross income by men vs gross income by women. Doesn't takes into account that far more men enter into far more lucrative career choices.

 

Simple really: women have the right to vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want. They also have the right to run for office, assmeble into political parties even. If women want more representation from women and less men representation, women need to start voting for women before any serious discussion on this subject can happen. Unless women don't have a right to vote.

 

So moving on to your third link which can actually be confirmed to be a meaningless and unfair comparison just by the mere title of it:

 

So for the second time, we cannot force women to take positions they don't want to take. If women want to earn more when it comes to gross income they're welcome to enter into STEM fields and choose career paths that involve greater risks, greater sacrifices to obtain a greater income as the result.

 

I am sorry if women feel unwelcomed in more aggressive, competitive fields. Such is the nature of said feels and career paths that require aggressive and competitive candidates to succeed. It's a profoundly stupid idea to force businesses into being less efficient and generate less revenue overall by choosing inadecuate candidates based on quotas instead of qualifications for the jobs at hand.

I'm not trying to force women into STEM

But you have raised another interesting point - why are there far more men in more lucrative careers? It's certainly an interesting thing to discuss.

I don't get why this issue causes so much backlash though, I get that the idea that there is still inequality in the world is offensive, but rather than denying it, isn't it better to attempt to fix it? Also, unadjusted is a statistical term - it doesn't make it irrelevant, it just means that it's represented in a linear regression rather than as a multiple regression. Of course, the data could certainly be improved, but as I said - that was just a 5 minute google.

You have this weird idea about STEM fields that they're aggressive, don't know where you got that from but it's not really that true. You may need to be aggressive when you're studying, and in your ambition, but it's not a particularly aggressive field.

Once again, I'm not saying that there is a big conspiracy against women, rather that it's a preconception people have about strong women. They're far more likely to be viewed negatively than men who show the same traits.

[Maxxie]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I addressed said links: gross income vs gross income is a meaningless statistic: we cannot force women into more lucrative careers.

Nobody is trying to, but there is data for all levels of pay, if you look for it - female directors get paid less than male directors.

http://www.equalpayportal.co.uk/statistics/

[Maxxie]

19 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

2 of them say this 

(Total salary of men)/(Number of working men)>(Total salary of women)/(Number of working women)

And one of them is just an opinion poll of the general populace. In the end, only the managerial boards and HR departments are going to decide on the salaries and promotions given.

That last part is exactly the point - it's not a conspiracy, it's a conception about women in general. Statistically HR departments and managerial boards prefer to promote men, pay men more, and pass women up on raises more frequently.

I really don't get what's so controversial about this  

[TheElt]

Just now, Maxxie said:

If it's been debunked - cite your sources! I've just posted a few links that show evidence of a wage gap.

Your sources were trash, read above, @Kumaresh and @Misanthrope summed up what's wrong with them pretty quick. I'll start citing sources as I can find them for what I'm saying. But alright, ^{[1] [2] [3]}

 

Quote

To answer your question a bit more overtly - it's not necessarily a conscious decision that results in women getting paid less, it's a preconception of the hiring manager, that's why companies don't hire only women.

Take my previous example, then. If you ran a company and could save nearly $1k per hour, $47k per week, or $1.7M per year (Based on average hours worked per year for US citizens ^[4] ) if you hired exclusively women, why wouldn't you?

 

Quote

Companies care about certain laws, because they have to, but whenever a large company can bend the rules - it certainly will. That's just how you maximise profits, though these are normally in ways like paying bribes, tax evasion, poor safety regulation, etc.

But overtly offering someone less pay for the same work (Excluding pay rise bonuses, that's completely different) is illegal and as soon as anyone found out they'd complain. (Can't get a source for this, it's common sense to enquire about something if you're not being treat right)

 

Quote

I didn't say that you couldn't prove it, I said that companies make it difficult to prove. Also, there is a perception about women and negotiation - they are far less likely to be successful when negotiating for a raise.

I'm not gonna go and ask for a citation from you on this, because it comes down to the reasons for not giving that person a raise, those reasons can very easily be mutually shared between either gender. Maybe they aren't doing good enough work, maybe someone is better than them and deserves the raise more, it's all down to their manager and what they think, hence why data will be hard to come across.

 

Quote

With this uneducated people thing, I am willing to bet that I'm quite well educated  . There is a stigma about discussing pay openly, that's not something that should come as a surprise to you. And people DO kick off, but there isn't a media stink because this isn't news. This has been the case since women have been in the office - where is the news?!

So far, you've proved yourself wrong and just shown your arrogance. [Citation needed] for data on there being a stigma about discussing pay, from my experience so far people don't really mind revealing how much they earn, if you went to a co-woker and asked how much they got paid per hour, and said you were asking because you think someone is being paid less for the same work, they'd probably tell you. Are you for real? So you're telling me if someone working for a company such as Google, or Amazon, or Tesla, or any other big company found 100% concrete evidence that a woman was being paid less for exactly the same work when neither parties had asked for raises, the media would ignore it all? Are you high? Why do you think companies care so much about their reputation?

 

Quote

I also don't apply for jobs with an hourly wage. But, once again, the wage gap isn't a conspiracy by big companies - it's a perception that results in women being offered a lower salary.

So you apply for jobs with a piece based wage, then? Women aren't offered a lower salary, everyone starts at the same amount, and then it's up to them to work hard and negotiate for increased pay.

[Misanthrope]

21 minutes ago, Maxxie said:

I'm not trying to force women into STEM

But you have raised another interesting point - why are there far more men in more lucrative careers? It's certainly an interesting thing to discuss.

I don't get why this issue causes so much backlash though, I get that the idea that there is still inequality in the world is offensive, but rather than denying it, isn't it better to attempt to fix it? Also, unadjusted is a statistical term - it doesn't make it irrelevant, it just means that it's represented in a linear regression rather than as a multiple regression. Of course, the data could certainly be improved, but as I said - that was just a 5 minute google.

You have this weird idea about STEM fields that they're aggressive, don't know where you got that from but it's not really that true. You may need to be aggressive when you're studying, and in your ambition, but it's not a particularly aggressive field.

Once again, I'm not saying that there is a big conspiracy against women, rather that it's a preconception people have about strong women. They're far more likely to be viewed negatively than men who show the same traits.

I am naturally a skeptic individual: I do not like to form opinions based on speculation but to answer some of your more specific points.

 

1.- Men are more naturally inclined to take on some of this riskier and difficult fields. There's definitively biology at work here as we know that while there's no definitive traits that are inherently male or female there's marked and easy to observe differences in average behavior. I find no problem in recognizing this simple facts however I do find a problem with people who want to equate this traits into inherently negative traits.

 

2.- You need to take a look into what people using talking points like the wage gap promote which is Misandry and female superiority. "Not all feminists" goes without saying of course but when this points come up in conversation is usually not in the context of a harmless discussion in a website forum like this one, but in the context of elected officials trying to legislate laws that would require gender based quotas and wages based not on merit but on gender alone. Just because you see it as seemingly harmless doesn't means that the concept isn't actually dangerous and harmful in the real world when it comes up in politicis and such.

 

3.- "You have this weird idea about STEM fields that they're aggressive" Conceded since that's fairly irrelevant to the point I was making: If women want to choose the highest paying fields which happen to be STEM, they can choose to. There's literally nobody stopping them. If they do not I won't speculate about the reason anymore since I don't see it as an issue that I should be concerned about.

 

4.- You are saying there's no conspiracy but many popular Feminists describe the patriarchy as systemic and systematic oppression of women by men. Since here in western societies there is not a single right women don't have than men do have there's no evidence to show there's such a conspiracy or system of oppression. At most Feminist (that can albeit be described as more moderate) indicate how this not a conspiracy but an unconsious bias from an inherently male centric society but there's little that can be done to address that in a reasonable matter (cause hiring quotas, affirmative hiring, etc. are NOT reasonable ways)

[Nowak]

What's all this about the wage gap and SJWs?

...oh, right, this is the LGBT Community, the one thread that is never on topic.