Feminists don't understand statistics or care about the truth

[Metaphor]

This little nugget reported by the Queens of Stupid, the staff at feministing.com

Transcript:

White man: I would like to buy a lemonade.

Boy: One dollar please!

Black woman: And I would love some of your lemonade.

White girl: Here you go!

White man: I’m going to give you this and take that. Thank you.

Black girl: Hey, this isn’t enough money.

Black woman: Ah, ah, ah. We are still buying lemonade. One glass of lemonade please.

Black girl: Excuse me, my lemonade is for a dollar and you gave me 65 cents.

Latina girl: I only got 54 cents.

White girl: And you only gave me 78 cents.

If they did not pay the stated price, they are breaching a contract or just plain robbing you. Do not sell them the lemonade.

White man: You know what, this is so great. You guys are awesome at math. Amazing.

White girl to white boy: How much did you get?

White boy: I got a dollar.

Black woman: Ah, it is not polite to talk about money.

Black girl: But why does he get one dollar and I only get 65 cents.

Black woman: Oh, it’s simple. Because we value him more than we value you.

Is this 65c lemonade the same product? What kind of idiot is this whitey who pays 50% more for the exact same product?

Also, why isn't this lemonade-guzzling criminal behind bars? If the advertised price is $1 and you give 65c and then take the product anyway, that's theft.

White boy: But…why?

White man: Well, because…that’s the way it’s always been.

White girl: But we should all earn the same amount for the same work.

White man: Technically. But you didn’t ask for a dollar for your lemonade. You just gave it away, so actually, it’s your fault.

White boy: This isn’t fair.

Black woman: You got a dollar. Why are you upset?

White man to white boy: This really isn’t your problem. They just need to sell a little bit more lemonade so they can “have it all.”

If they are selling the same product for a cheaper price, then they will indeed move more volume. But if they want to charge $1 because the white boy charged $1, who's stopping them?

White boy: Well, because we all made the same cups of lemonade, with the same ingredients. That would be like if you guys got paid differently for doing the exact same job.

Black woman: Oh, we have the same job.

White man: Yeah, we do…let’s not talk about that right now.

Black woman to white man: Are you making more than me? Are you making more than me?

And why not close with a flat-out lie: that the 'wage gap' represents all groups doing the same jobs with the same effort at the same level of seniority at the same level of competency and performance.

Is basic reasoning and critical thinking so difficult a discipline to master?

 

[Trausti]

And why not close with a flat-out lie: that the 'wage gap' represents all groups doing the same jobs with the same effort at the same level of seniority at the same level of competency and performance.

Is basic reasoning and critical thinking so difficult a discipline to master?

The neo-feminists have gained so much mileage out of the lie, it's worth repeating again and again. The fallacy of the lie has been exposed for a many years now.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pQ7KXv0o0[/YOUTUBE]

I'd speculate that the persistence of the lie is likely a symptom of the political left's near stranglehold on colleges and universities; such that impressionable young minds are oblivious that they are being indoctrinated into a discredited economic fallacy. If true wage inequality existed at a place of employment, the legal remedy already exists to correct this: file a lawsuit. Statutes pertaining to wage discrimination (which have been on the books for a long time now) allow not just for past and future wage compensation, but also for costs and attorney fees. Wage discrimination can be costly and most employers do their best to avoid it.

Perhaps the real-world adage to forget everything you learned in college is apt for this subject. Ronda Rousey, who spared herself the special-snowflake feminism entrenched at universities, gets it right.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5xRHz8Su6E[/YOUTUBE]

 

[untermensche]

It is telling when people use the rarest case to try to make a point.

Ronda Rousey is a rare freak and people like freak shows.

But what she does and says has absolutely nothing to do with the world of 99.9% of women.

 

[Trausti]

Ronda Rousey is a rare freak and people like freak shows.

Sexist misogynist.

 

[untermensche]

Ronda Rousey is a rare freak and people like freak shows.

Sexist misogynist.

There is nothing wrong with being a rare freak when your rarity is agility and strength.

That's most of professional sports, rare freaks.

 

[Nexus]

But what she does and says has absolutely nothing to do with the world of 99.9% of women.

The same goes for female soccer players. If fewer people are watching them then they are going to make less money. In sports that lots of people watch female players like ice skating or tennis, the women make money there too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Generalizing anecdotes to all feminists is illogical. I am sure we could find some anecdotes about gay Australians, but it would not merit a thread entitled "Gay Australians like kangaroo sex with Muslims."

 

[rousseau]

Why centre out 'feminists' (as if they were a homogeneous group)? It's not like any other group in the world cares about truth either.

Feminism is an example amongst a variety of examples of groups fighting for their own survival and rights. God forbid women make a play to help turn around their oppression that's been going on for the entirety of recorded history.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ronda Rousey is a rare freak and people like freak shows.

Sexist misogynist.

As opposed to a non-sexist misogynist.

 

[untermensche]

But what she does and says has absolutely nothing to do with the world of 99.9% of women.

The same goes for female soccer players. If fewer people are watching them then they are going to make less money. In sports that lots of people watch female players like ice skating or tennis, the women make money there too.

The vast majority of women are not on television.

How does this translate to the real world of most women?

Women the boss likes looking at more get paid more?

 

[Metaphor]

Generalizing anecdotes to all feminists is illogical. I am sure we could find some anecdotes about gay Australians, but it would not merit a thread entitled "Gay Australians like kangaroo sex with Muslims."

I did anticipate this, and my original title was going to be 'Feministing staff don't understand...', but that suffered from the opposite problem. It's more than just the staff at feministing, or everydayfeminism, or the group that made the video in question. The repeated and wilful deceptions by self-branded feminists on matters like the pay gap is not restricted to one specific group of feminists.

However, your analogy is wrong-headed. "Gay" - a sexual orientation - is not a self-chosen philosophical or religious or political expression of ideas. Branding oneself a feminist - with the concomitant narrative - is.

 

[Metaphor]

Why centre out 'feminists' (as if they were a homogeneous group)? It's not like any other group in the world cares about truth either.

Feminism is an example amongst a variety of examples of groups fighting for their own survival and rights. God forbid women make a play to help turn around their oppression that's been going on for the entirety of recorded history.

Must people engage in wilful deceptions or reckless indifference to the truth to fight for their 'survival'?

 

[Toni]

Why centre out 'feminists' (as if they were a homogeneous group)? It's not like any other group in the world cares about truth either.

Feminism is an example amongst a variety of examples of groups fighting for their own survival and rights. God forbid women make a play to help turn around their oppression that's been going on for the entirety of recorded history.

Must people engage in wilful deceptions or reckless indifference to the truth to fight for their 'survival'?

You tell me.

 

[Trausti]

Why centre out 'feminists' (as if they were a homogeneous group)? It's not like any other group in the world cares about truth either.

Feminism is an example amongst a variety of examples of groups fighting for their own survival and rights. God forbid women make a play to help turn around their oppression that's been going on for the entirety of recorded history.

Must people engage in wilful deceptions or reckless indifference to the truth to fight for their 'survival'?

It's like lying for Jesus. You can justify anything!

 

[Metaphor]

Must people engage in wilful deceptions or reckless indifference to the truth to fight for their 'survival'?

You tell me.

Gay men are more likely to use recreational drugs and have multiple unprotected sex partners than any other gender/sexual orientation group.

That's a fact. Pretending it is not a fact doesn't help anyone. Indeed, pretending it is not a fact hurts people, because it implies that there is something morally wrong with using recreational drugs or having consensual sex, which there isn't.

It is not a fact that men and women get different pay for work of equal value. Even if it were a fact, the figures quoted ad nauseam to 'illustrate' the fact do not illustrate the fact. Those figures illustrate a different fact that is unrelated to the feminist mythology, which is spun from whole cloth* , and resists all logic and reason.

*hire Latina women to do the spinning it's cheaper!

 

[laughing dog]

This little nugget reported by the Queens of Stupid, the staff at feministing.com



If they did not pay the stated price, they are breaching a contract or just plain robbing you. Do not sell them the lemonade.

White man: You know what, this is so great. You guys are awesome at math. Amazing.

White girl to white boy: How much did you get?

White boy: I got a dollar.

Black woman: Ah, it is not polite to talk about money.

Black girl: But why does he get one dollar and I only get 65 cents.

Black woman: Oh, it’s simple. Because we value him more than we value you.

Is this 65c lemonade the same product? What kind of idiot is this whitey who pays 50% more for the exact same product?

Also, why isn't this lemonade-guzzling criminal behind bars? If the advertised price is $1 and you give 65c and then take the product anyway, that's theft.

White boy: But…why?

White man: Well, because…that’s the way it’s always been.

White girl: But we should all earn the same amount for the same work.

White man: Technically. But you didn’t ask for a dollar for your lemonade. You just gave it away, so actually, it’s your fault.

White boy: This isn’t fair.

Black woman: You got a dollar. Why are you upset?

White man to white boy: This really isn’t your problem. They just need to sell a little bit more lemonade so they can “have it all.”

If they are selling the same product for a cheaper price, then they will indeed move more volume. But if they want to charge $1 because the white boy charged $1, who's stopping them?

White boy: Well, because we all made the same cups of lemonade, with the same ingredients. That would be like if you guys got paid differently for doing the exact same job.

Black woman: Oh, we have the same job.

White man: Yeah, we do…let’s not talk about that right now.

Black woman to white man: Are you making more than me? Are you making more than me?

And why not close with a flat-out lie: that the 'wage gap' represents all groups doing the same jobs with the same effort at the same level of seniority at the same level of competency and performance.

Is basic reasoning and critical thinking so difficult a discipline to master?

As the OP illustrates, apparently so. You and others think the wage "gap" should factor out all of the presumed explanatory variables while "feminists" do not. That is not an issue of critical thinking - it is a dispute over the importance of the presumed relevant factors in the explanation. You and others think those variables are independent of gender and gender discrimination while the "feminists" do not accept that rationale.

 

[Trausti]

This little nugget reported by the Queens of Stupid, the staff at feministing.com



If they did not pay the stated price, they are breaching a contract or just plain robbing you. Do not sell them the lemonade.



Is this 65c lemonade the same product? What kind of idiot is this whitey who pays 50% more for the exact same product?

Also, why isn't this lemonade-guzzling criminal behind bars? If the advertised price is $1 and you give 65c and then take the product anyway, that's theft.

White boy: But…why?

White man: Well, because…that’s the way it’s always been.

White girl: But we should all earn the same amount for the same work.

White man: Technically. But you didn’t ask for a dollar for your lemonade. You just gave it away, so actually, it’s your fault.

White boy: This isn’t fair.

Black woman: You got a dollar. Why are you upset?

White man to white boy: This really isn’t your problem. They just need to sell a little bit more lemonade so they can “have it all.”

If they are selling the same product for a cheaper price, then they will indeed move more volume. But if they want to charge $1 because the white boy charged $1, who's stopping them?

White boy: Well, because we all made the same cups of lemonade, with the same ingredients. That would be like if you guys got paid differently for doing the exact same job.

Black woman: Oh, we have the same job.

White man: Yeah, we do…let’s not talk about that right now.

Black woman to white man: Are you making more than me? Are you making more than me?

And why not close with a flat-out lie: that the 'wage gap' represents all groups doing the same jobs with the same effort at the same level of seniority at the same level of competency and performance.

Is basic reasoning and critical thinking so difficult a discipline to master?

As the OP illustrates, apparently so. You and others think the wage "gap" should factor out all of the presumed explanatory variables while "feminists" do not. That is not an issue of critical thinking - it is a dispute over the importance of the presumed relevant factors in the explanation. You and others think those variables are independent of gender and gender discrimination while the "feminists" do not accept that rationale.

Wouldn't you first need to demonstrate that the variable actually exists? The problem highlighted by the OP is that a contention is constantly put forward which lacks evidentiary support.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

 

[laughing dog]

This little nugget reported by the Queens of Stupid, the staff at feministing.com



If they did not pay the stated price, they are breaching a contract or just plain robbing you. Do not sell them the lemonade.



Is this 65c lemonade the same product? What kind of idiot is this whitey who pays 50% more for the exact same product?

Also, why isn't this lemonade-guzzling criminal behind bars? If the advertised price is $1 and you give 65c and then take the product anyway, that's theft.

White boy: But…why?

White man: Well, because…that’s the way it’s always been.

White girl: But we should all earn the same amount for the same work.

White man: Technically. But you didn’t ask for a dollar for your lemonade. You just gave it away, so actually, it’s your fault.

White boy: This isn’t fair.

Black woman: You got a dollar. Why are you upset?

White man to white boy: This really isn’t your problem. They just need to sell a little bit more lemonade so they can “have it all.”

If they are selling the same product for a cheaper price, then they will indeed move more volume. But if they want to charge $1 because the white boy charged $1, who's stopping them?

White boy: Well, because we all made the same cups of lemonade, with the same ingredients. That would be like if you guys got paid differently for doing the exact same job.

Black woman: Oh, we have the same job.

White man: Yeah, we do…let’s not talk about that right now.

Black woman to white man: Are you making more than me? Are you making more than me?

And why not close with a flat-out lie: that the 'wage gap' represents all groups doing the same jobs with the same effort at the same level of seniority at the same level of competency and performance.

Is basic reasoning and critical thinking so difficult a discipline to master?

As the OP illustrates, apparently so. You and others think the wage "gap" should factor out all of the presumed explanatory variables while "feminists" do not. That is not an issue of critical thinking - it is a dispute over the importance of the presumed relevant factors in the explanation. You and others think those variables are independent of gender and gender discrimination while the "feminists" do not accept that rationale.

Wouldn't you first need to demonstrate that the variable actually exists? The problem highlighted by the OP is that a contention is constantly put forward which lacks evidentiary support.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Wouldn't you first need to demonstrate that presumed relevant variables are independent and relevant? The issue is not one of statistics or critical reasoning, but over values that deemed important.

 

[Metaphor]

As the OP illustrates, apparently so. You and others think the wage "gap" should factor out all of the presumed explanatory variables while "feminists" do not. That is not an issue of critical thinking - it is a dispute over the importance of the presumed relevant factors in the explanation. You and others think those variables are independent of gender and gender discrimination while the "feminists" do not accept that rationale.

Actually, I don't think the explanatory variables are independent of gender. It's precisely because they're not independent of gender that explains (all or much of) the gap.

Do feminists want equality of wage outcomes regardless of inputs? They do not appear to want that, if we're to believe 'equal pay for work of equal value' slogan. As it happens, I believe equal pay for work of equal value is an extremely important aspect of distributive justice.

So if they agree that inputs should influence outcomes -- and the inputs differ between different groups -- why would any rational person ignore the fact that unequal inputs lead to unequal outcomes, and then treat the unequal outcome as if it were a violation of distributive justice?

 

[laughing dog]

As the OP illustrates, apparently so. You and others think the wage "gap" should factor out all of the presumed explanatory variables while "feminists" do not. That is not an issue of critical thinking - it is a dispute over the importance of the presumed relevant factors in the explanation. You and others think those variables are independent of gender and gender discrimination while the "feminists" do not accept that rationale.

Actually, I don't think the explanatory variables are independent of gender. It's precisely because they're not independent of gender that explains (all or much of) the gap.

Do feminists want equality of wage outcomes regardless of inputs? They do not appear to want that, if we're to believe 'equal pay for work of equal value' slogan. As it happens, I believe equal pay for work of equal value is an extremely important aspect of distributive justice.

So if they agree that inputs should influence outcomes -- and the inputs differ between different groups -- why would any rational person ignore the fact that unequal inputs lead to unequal outcomes, and then treat the unequal outcome as if it were a violation of distributive justice?

Except I believe (and I could be wrong here) that much of the inequality of "inputs" is gender based. I don't believe (and again, I could be wrong) that "feminists" necessarily disagree that from a distributive justice POV that unequal inputs lead to unequal outcomes when that inequality is not due to gender differences.