Spin-off thread about feminism

That doesn't make it any better.

It doesn't help that Citizen Tang was more than willing to buck the GOP party line and embolden disenfranchised demographics in the process.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Ivana was decades ago true, but the new ones were a month before the election. And the Ivana and Donald had a very public tabloid fueled divorce. Which resulted in no charges.

Again, you don't like Trump? Fine. So long as it is for policy, political performance, or lack there of in your case. But the tabloid BS is just that.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

See what I wrote to TONGO in that same post.

I did. It is still shaky. Also if you haven't seen my post concerning rape stigmata as a response to Ash, check it out.

Yeah I repped Iros post on that because he could be right, the injustice would be too much to swallow for a victim, possibly. It really would have helped greatly if even one person had come forward years ago, then more followed suit like Bill Cosbys accusers did, instead of it all happening within 3 months of the election.

Really gross stuff. Damn, Bernie really would have been a good President guys.

It could. But most people are going to want more information or some semblance of proof. Most people want to believe the rape victim. That is going to be the normal reaction of most people in America. But given the circumstances, the timing, and the entire big picture the accusations are at the best shaky, and at the worst, dubious.

If what they say is true, then this.

Let's not go crazy Tongo.

Yeah, I dunno how we got twisted up, but no worries. The main thing is: we agree rape is not just about sexual release.

Yes and no. I'd agree that's part of it. I'd only disagree (and I'm not convinced this is what you're even saying) that it's enough of an explanation by itself.

Maybe this is a more helpful way to put it: I think a disparity should be expected given the hugely disproportionate number of situations in which men are sexually rejected. But I also think that this disparity is bigger than is mathematically (for lack of a better word) necessary, because men are more violent by their very nature. Though I do want to preemptively point out the distinction between the nature of men, and simply "used to being in control." I think it's a lot deeper than just habit, or even culture, and I think masculine impulses aren't as juvenile as "I want to be in charge and I'm mad when I'm not" (again, not that you're saying they are).

So what I was bristling about originally was not the idea that men are just more inherently violent, because they obviously are. It was just the idea that any disparity in sexual assault is proof of this, when I think some disparity would be expected either way.

Basically, I'm arguing against the idea that differences in outcomes are proof of sexism. Men and women are different, and there's literally no reason to expect that equality under the law, or even equal esteem within the culture, would lead to identical outcomes in anything. I'm not sure if anyone literally said otherwise, but that's the implication if someone simply cites a difference, as if that makes the point by itself.

That's probably true, though I totally buy that women apply for those jobs far less, out of genuine disinterest. That first link you posted contained some line about the sanitation department saying they don't get many applicants.

I think sexism exists, but I also think most of the people handling the hiring in anything close to an entry-level field are really desperate for good, reliable workers, and that that's usually their primary concern.

And here's the nice thing: even if we do nothing, places that don't hire qualified women? They're at a competitive disadvantage. They will literally lose money on account of their prejudice. Competitors who don't share that prejudice will benefit.

I think treating women like a hive-mind (a pet peeve of mine on both ends of the political spectrum) is obviously silly. But do we agree that it's usually true, even if not universally? That fewer women are going to be interested in filthy and/or dangerous jobs relative to men?

Yeah, I suppose I took that opening line about safety protocols to suggest that this was something people were fighting to change, but perhaps I was extrapolating there.

Anyway, since that first one's about women and men working side by side, what conclusion are you saying we should draw from it?

I can dig up some of the studies in question if necessary, but the ones I recall seeing that actually controlled for basic factors (industry, seniority, hours worked, etc.), and they all found either a gap the other way--with women earning slightly more--or a gap so small that it was indistinguishable from statistical noise. IE: 95 cents on the dollar.

I realize this is often lumped alongside more dubious anti-feminist arguments, but in this case, it's a legitimate complaint: there's a lot of really blatant misinformation floating around about the pay gap, and it's amazing how much of it gets passed around uncritically.

I know I'm not the one you were directing this toward, but I'd like to see those studies.

I've been out of the game for a couple years now, but when I was an econ undergrad the only wage gap work in labor economics that approached widespread acceptance (though not universal) was "Gender, Inequality, and Wages". IIRC, that work definitely shows a narrowed gap after controlling for industry/time served at occupation, but it certainly didn't vanish or go in the other direction. That said, I read it originally in college while I had access to our online library, and just now I tried for a while to confirm my memories by finding a way to read it again without paying a ridiculous amount, but no luck so far, I'm sure there's something out there and I'll look again later.

(By the way, the hot research issue when I left was about wage negotiation, which I haven't read all of but I recall a few studies that argued both [1] part of the wage gap is explained by women not negotiating for higher wages as effectively as men but that [2] women were just as effective as men at actually negotiating for wage increases, and IIRC even better than men, when it was on behalf of another party. Generally implying that there is some sort of ingrained stigma against women arguing for their own wage increases [either in their own minds or the minds of others]. It's also interesting because when I was looking around for the studies you mentioned I ran into this study on the different effects of testosterone on the wage gap, according to this study it seemed like men who had higher prenatal testosterone exposure [which is linked to being more masculine] had higher wage returns than those without, but that women who had higher testosterone exposure did not experience such a benefit; seemingly implying that it's not the market even simply rewarding masculinity, but just when it's males showing that masculinity [implying bias, imo]. But that's just a thought, the study did not argue that and I didn't come across one that did during my brief check.)

But I'd also caution about saying that a gender gap doesn't exist because it doesn't control for industry; it's not hard to imagine that part of the issue itself is that (A) industries with predominately female workers are underpaid relative to their generated value [i.e. the industry itself experiences some sort of blanket bias] or (B) women are pressured to participate in those less equitably paid industries [or at least aren't as encouraged as men are], or some sort of combination.

Basically, if someone said that (X) wage gap doesn't exist because (X Group) should simply get better paying jobs, I can't help but feel like part of the point was missed?

Regardless, even if controlling for industry (and other factors) is a categorical mistake, I still haven't seen anything that said there wasn't a gap after controlling for them, so I'm legitimately curious in any case.

I'll jump ahead a bit here too and say that you and I might even be in line on our thinking, because the general solutions I'd want to see tried first are solutions that let the market function better, though we might disagree on what function better means. The things I see creating a better labor market are paid family leave (for anyone) and getting more women into those other, higher paying industries. If we work on making those things we have to control for moot, and a pay gap is still there, then I think we can agree there's something else going on. Or if it disappears then we've really made progress, and we all can move on to a different argument.

Sure. There's What Do Wage Differentials Tell Us about Labor Market Discrimination? by June and David O'Neill, which finds controlling for those factors basically eliminates it. Money quote: "There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles."

The American Association of University Women conducted a similar study in 2012, though I can't find it online. But I found two articles from that time period referencing it, which each said they put the difference around 5-6%.

Perhaps most significantly, the U.S. Department of Labor put out a study in 2009 covering dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the topic, and similarly puts it between 5-7%.

I'll have to get back to you on the reverse gap thing. There's a 2010 study that, in large cities, young, single women earn more than young, single men, but that's obviously a little narrow (though still kinda hard to reconcile with the idea of society-wide sex discrimination). That wasn't the one I was thinking of, though, so let me see what I can find.

For the record, I don't think there's a reverse gap, and I think there could easily be some gap. But if there is, I think it's very small, to the point where it would be hard to say with much confidence that it exists at all, and harder still to chalk it up to sexism. 20% gaps can only be explained by big, glaring problems, but a 5% gap could be explained by a lot of relatively innocuous things.

Yeah, I've heard of that: that simply asking, or not, is a huge factor. Maybe it's as simple as convincing women it's okay to ask for raises.

Does it necessarily imply that? I think other possibilities fit the data. For example, maybe testosterone helps at high levels, but not low ones. Even women with very high testosterone levels will produce much, much less than even a low-T man. The baselines are totally different, and I don't know why we'd assume the effect is linear.

I'd also feel pretty safe assuming that men are more likely to work in fields where increased testosterone was beneficial in the first place. It probably helps construction workers, but I doubt it does much for clerical work. Probably just the opposite, in fact, since higher testosterone correlates with lower attention spans, IIRC.

I guess that depends on what you think "the point" is. It seems to me these arguments are almost invariably a response to one of those totally raw numbers, like "women make 77% as much as men," in which case I'd say it addresses the point pretty directly. Particularly when you consider the rhetoric that usually accompanies that number, like the phrase "equal pay for equal work," which the President used a number of times. When someone uses that number and that phrase in conjunction, they're basically lying.

It could miss the point if it were the response to a thoughtful, nuanced argument about broad societal priorities, I guess. But that's not what people are outraged over, and not what it's generally a response to. People are outraged over the idea that women are getting paid less for doing the same thing. The idea that prioritizing something over your work will affect your wages, on the other hand, is decidedly less outrageous.

I'd like to think so, but I'm skeptical it would make a difference. If people (leaders in particular) don't care about even basic methodological questions now, I dunno why they'd stop using this stuff to gin up outrage with a couple more data points.

Also, I simultaneously like and hate your replies, because they're always thoughtful and substantive, but in a way that means I have to be particularly thorough and considered in my response, which can be weirdly exhausting. So...thanks?

I'll have to take some time to go over those links, so the only part I'll address right now is:

I can agree with the basic premise here. If they are trying to make a point about inequality within industries but use numbers about inequalities between industries without making the distinction obvious, they are being a bit misleading, and likely intentionally so.

I agree, and you post a lot more than me so I have no idea how you do it. I only respond to your stuff when I feel like really putting something thoughtful together, because I have actually have to.

Makes my arguments better though, or at least I scrap bad ones.