Feminists don't understand statistics or care about the truth

[Jokodo]

Either you're misinterpreting me (deliberately?), or your attitude is more frightening than I thought.

Reproduction is a choice. Yet the fact that, once a man and a woman chose to reproduce together, one of them is expected to invest in child care much more than the other is a factor beyond the control of either.

That's a decision between the two of them. How does that relate to the neo-feminist lie highlighted in the OP?

It relates to something Metaphor said later in the thread:

Feminists sometimes seem to recognise that absences from the workplace (such as women are more likely to take being more often the primary caregiver) lead to lower lifetime wages. Some think men need to be made to also take time off when the men become fathers, as if families can't decide for themselves how best to manage parenting and work.
​

I have shown that this complaint only makes sense if we apply different standards for the morality of men being made to take time off vs women being made to take time off - either that, or it's simply ignorant of reality.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

To understand the definition of feminism it is not what anyone puts in a fictional make believe script it is about equal opportunities equal rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. Those who seek inferiority of women or superiority of women are not feminists per its definition.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know enough about the Australian system of family and child care benefits to tell whether your objections make sense in that context, but they don't here.

How does my objection not 'make sense'? Making government benefits contingent on behaviour of parents because you want parents to behave a certain way is justifiable; making government benefits contingent on behaviour of parents because you want employers to act a certain way seems absolutely daft.

For every woman who would have gone back to work and now has to stay home, there are three women who're free to go back to work while otherwise they'd have felt they need to stay at home.

Uh, no. Now both parents have to take leave. Under your idea, no woman is free to go back to work, whether she wants to or not, or the family loses benefits.

And once again, I don't know enough about Australia, but where I live, women are not allowed to work 8 weeks before the due date and 8 weeks after giving birth for health reasons - so we're already having the bad effects.

So, why don't you advocate repealing the pregnancy workplace exclusion laws?

I'd certainly be incensed if, as a woman, the government forbade me from paid work for 4 months whether I wanted to work or not.

 

[Metaphor]

dupe

 

[Jokodo]

How does my objection not 'make sense'? Making government benefits contingent on behaviour of parents because you want parents to behave a certain way is justifiable; making government benefits contingent on behaviour of parents because you want employers to act a certain way seems absolutely daft.

If the behaviour of employers you want changed is, contingent on their expectations of parents' behaviour, a change of parents' behaviour (in aggregate) will within a short while lead to a change of the relevant employers' behaviour. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Maybe this is one such case.

At any rate, before we can reasonably talk about how to best tackle a problem, we need to acknowledge its existence. I'm still not sure we're quite there. Maybe there a better solutions, but "I don't like your solution so I'll pretend there is no problem" doesn't fall into this category.

 

[Metaphor]

How does my objection not 'make sense'? Making government benefits contingent on behaviour of parents because you want parents to behave a certain way is justifiable; making government benefits contingent on behaviour of parents because you want employers to act a certain way seems absolutely daft.

If the behaviour of employers you want changed is, contingent on their expectations of parents' behaviour, a change of parents' behaviour (in aggregate) will within a short while lead to a change of the relevant employers' behaviour. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Maybe this is one such case.

At any rate, before we can reasonably talk about how to best tackle a problem, we need to acknowledge its existence. I'm still not sure we're quite there. Maybe there a better solutions, but "I don't like your solution so I'll pretend there is no problem" doesn't fall into this category.

I acknowledge that gender-biased employer attitudes to parental leave are a problem, because that is a constraint on M-F couples with children on how they'd like to divide parenting roles.

I don't acknowledge that whatever the rest of 'society' thinks in any way ought to be treated as a constraint on choice. For example, if people in your social circle think a father being the primary caregiver is shameful and ridiculous, your social circle is fucked up and you need to get a different one.

But if I think employer bias is a problem, the solution is to restrict the behaviour of employers, not employees.

I also don't think a couple deciding that one parent is going to be the primary caregiver is any of my fucking business, and so I don't think telling all couples, by threat of government, that they need to share primary caregiving in early childhood years is any kind of 'solution'.

 

[Jokodo]

If the behaviour of employers you want changed is, contingent on their expectations of parents' behaviour, a change of parents' behaviour (in aggregate) will within a short while lead to a change of the relevant employers' behaviour. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Maybe this is one such case.

At any rate, before we can reasonably talk about how to best tackle a problem, we need to acknowledge its existence. I'm still not sure we're quite there. Maybe there a better solutions, but "I don't like your solution so I'll pretend there is no problem" doesn't fall into this category.

I acknowledge that gender-biased employer attitudes to parental leave are a problem, because that is a constraint on M-F couples with children on how they'd like to divide parenting roles.

OK, great. This is progress. It didn't really sound like you did for the last five posts, and it certainly didn't sound like you did in the post to which I initially replied.

So, do you have a solution? Or is your only solution "yeah, it's fucked up, but any possible cure is necessarily worse than the disease so we'll have to live with this sad fact until it goes away on its own"?

I don't acknowledge that whatever the rest of 'society' thinks in any way ought to be treated as a constraint on choice. For example, if people in your social circle think a father being the primary caregiver is shameful and ridiculous, your social circle is fucked up and you need to get a different one.

We're not talking about social circles, we're talking about employers.

Sure, you could say your employer is fucked up and you need to get a different one, but on that ground you could do away with all anti-discrimination legislation, and somehow I don't think that's where you're heading.

But if I think employer bias is a problem, the solution is to restrict the behaviour of employers, not employees.

I also don't think a couple deciding that one parent is going to be the primary caregiver is any of my fucking business, and so I don't think telling all couples, by threat of government, that they need to share primary caregiving in early childhood years is any kind of 'solution'.

If all couples shared primary caregiving duties in early childhood, employers would adapt accordingly by expecting both men and women to do so, and pretty quickly too. Once that change of attitude has happened, there's no need to keep telling couple that they need to share primary caregiving.

We seem to agree that such a change of attitude is desirable. I have suggested one way to bring it about, at a cost. You seem to object that the cost is too high, but don't put forward a different strategy to bring about the result. Do you have one, or do you just not care enough about real equality of opportunities?

 

[Metaphor]

OK, great. This is progress. It didn't really sound like you did for the last five posts, and it certainly didn't sound like you did in the post to which I initially replied.

No: what I objected to was your characterisation of choices being influenced as 'unfree' choices. By your definition of 'unfree', no choice is free.

I stand by my characterisation of choices - even ones influenced by differential gender expectations - as free, as 'deciding for themselves'.

So, do you have a solution? Or is your only solution "yeah, it's fucked up, but any possible cure is necessarily worse than the disease so we'll have to live with this sad fact until it goes away on its own"?

I do not think that every possible cure is worse than the disease. I did not say it and I don't believe it. What I said was I don't know how to judge your cure until you describe your cure.

We're not talking about social circles, we're talking about employers.

But you appear to believe that social forces leave people unfree to choose.

Sure, you could say your employer is fucked up and you need to get a different one, but on that ground you could do away with all anti-discrimination legislation, and somehow I don't think that's where you're heading.

It wasn't where I was heading, but I also think that voting with your feet is a powerful weapon against toxic situations. I could bemoan the fact that the world is still full of homophobia, but unless those homophobes are my employers or have the power to legislate against me or are physically violent with me, I simply don't care about them. The thoughts and feelings of homophobes are of no interest to me or my happiness.

If all couples shared primary caregiving duties in early childhood, employers would adapt accordingly by expecting both men and women to do so, and pretty quickly too. Once that change of attitude has happened, there's no need to keep telling couple that they need to share primary caregiving.

We seem to agree that such a change of attitude is desirable.

The attitude that employers should not discriminate by sex is desirable. Forcing parents to share primary caregiving to compel this attitude change among employers does not seem to me like it would work, let alone quickly.

I have suggested one way to bring it about, at a cost. You seem to object that the cost is too high, but don't put forward a different strategy to bring about the result. Do you have one, or do you just not care enough about real equality of opportunities?

I've already suggested one solution: requiring all parental leave policies to be gender neutral. That is a far better solution because

i) It does not curtail the freedom of parents in order to change the attitudes of another group
ii) It ensures legal protection of parents against gender-biased employers, whereas your 'solution' does not
iii) It compels something with widespread support (non-discrimination by gender) versus compelling something with virtually no support (the government forcing parents to time-share primary caregiving).

But I also strongly object to your demand that I come up with an alternative strategy, as if an alternative strategy or a lack of one would change the cost of your strategy.

You are free to reject my 'destroy the biosphere' anti-malaria strategy without coming up with one of your own, by pointing out how totally and wretchedly morally abhorrent it is (though it would get rid of malaria). I wouldn't even call you a pro-malaria stooge if you decided to do so.

 

[Toni]

the title

Did she write the title?

A radical fix to the world's wage gap: why not just pay women more – and pay men less?

A question---notice the words why not and the question mark at the end? I bolded them for you.

Doesn't the question invite discourse? An exchange of ideas?

Given the sad status of women and work lately, it may be that a little “I don’t fucking care if you like it” is exactly what gender equality needs right now.

Notice the conditional sentence. You can tell that it is conditional because of the parts I bolded: it may be. May being the key word here. Hardly a rousing sentence advocating taking something away from men.

“It appears that Jill Abramson believed the women’s salaries were unfairly low for the work they did and she addressed that directly.”

Addressing gender imbalance directly: imagine that! No hemming and hawing about how the problem started or what women need to do to fix it – management fixed it, as they should have.

So, at least you are aware of Jill Abramson and her strategy to address inequality in compensation at her (former) place of employment. Can you name it? Never mind. That doesn't matter that much.

What is more to the point is that you are using Velenti's discussion of someone else's statement as a firm advocacy a position.

Do you disagree that the best way to address at least some issues is to address them directly? Instead of hemming and hawing? Should management not address imbalances with regards to gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.?

Now, I never thought I’d find myself arguing against something in the US Equal Pay Act, and I understand that men may not exactly love the idea of taking pay cuts – or giving up power more broadly – in the name of gender justice. But the scales have been tipped toward the men for too long, and if fixing a huge systemic inequality means that some guys’ paychecks need to take a hit – I’m always OK with privileging the marginalized.

Again, she used the word 'if,' making this a conditional statement.

So I’ll take a temporarily unrealistic solution over an unfixed problem any day of the week – especially Monday through Friday, from 9 to 5.

Again, notice the words temporarily unrealistic.

Now, it seems to me you do not advocate the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't have such a hard time admitting Valenti does.

That's a good thing. It means you can see the lack of merit in radically unhinged ideas.

I see you as fully proficient in English as a language. I wonder if you are as capable of understanding subtleties in tone, irony, humor, wit?

I do understand why you would think that if I or any other reasonably intelligent, decently well read, educated person agreed with your position that Valenti is promoting a radically unhinged solution that you would see this as a good thing. Sadly, you will simply have to make due with Derec and Loren as soul mates.

 

[Metaphor]

Did she write the title?

I don't know. I don't know if she wrote any of the words in the article either. Her name is against it, and if the title were so misrepresentative of her content then she could have withdrawn the whole article.

A question---notice the words why not and the question mark at the end? I bolded them for you.

Doesn't the question invite discourse? An exchange of ideas?

No, questions do not always do that. Are questions not sometimes just a rhetorical device, to illustrate a point? Don't answer that.

Valenti isn't writing for a message board where she is asking for feedback or discussion. She's drawing attention to a radically unhinged idea and even if you think she's not advocating it (I would say she is, she's just got her politician-speak on and is being mealy-mouthed and hedging her bets), the very least she's doing is elevating the idea from 'unthinkable' to 'worthy of consideration'.

Notice the conditional sentence. You can tell that it is conditional because of the parts I bolded: it may be. May being the key word here. Hardly a rousing sentence advocating taking something away from men.

I see where I've gone wrong. Valenti wrote an entire article discussing an idea she opposes and sees no merit in.

What is more to the point is that you are using Velenti's discussion of someone else's statement as a firm advocacy a position.

Do you disagree that the best way to address at least some issues is to address them directly? Instead of hemming and hawing? Should management not address imbalances with regards to gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.?

I have no idea what it means to address an issue directly until you describe what it is you intend to do.

If an 'imbalance' is evident to management (how do you know something's unbalanced?), whether or not it should be addressed 'directly' or at all depends. For example, if management finds that their promotion and hiring practises are fair and unbiased, why should they take any 'direct action'? What would there be to act on?

Again, she used the word 'if,' making this a conditional statement.

Yes, I can see she's being mealy-mouthed, but it's certainly the case that unless she can think of a better solution, she is ready and willing to support this one. Or rather, she is supporting this idea unless a better one comes along.

Again, notice the words temporarily unrealistic.

You know what the word 'temporarily' means, right? Valenti means the solution is currently unrealistic but won't be unrealistic in the future.

I think she's wrong about that (thank goodness).

I do understand why you would think that if I or any other reasonably intelligent, decently well read, educated person agreed with your position that Valenti is promoting a radically unhinged solution that you would see this as a good thing. Sadly, you will simply have to make due with Derec and Loren as soul mates.

So you do advocate reducing men's salaries in an organisation until they are arithmetically on par with women's as a reasonable 'direct action'?

The last sentence is a genuine question, not a rhetorical device.

 

[Toni]

I don't know. I don't know if she wrote any of the words in the article either. Her name is against it, and if the title were so misrepresentative of her content then she could have withdrawn the whole article.

I don't know if she composed the title, either. I do know that it is extremely common for editorial staff to title articles. And often to compose them specifically to generate as much traffic to the site as possible. You know: click bait.

A question---notice the words why not and the question mark at the end? I bolded them for you.

Doesn't the question invite discourse? An exchange of ideas?

No, questions do not always do that.

I wasn't inquiring about all questions or questions in general. I was asking about that specific question. Which is why I bolded 'the' in above. To draw your attention.

Valenti isn't writing for a message board where she is asking for feedback or discussion. She's drawing attention to a radically unhinged idea and even if you think she's not advocating it (I would say she is, she's just got her politician-speak on and is being mealy-mouthed and hedging her bets), the very least she's doing is elevating the idea from 'unthinkable' to 'worthy of consideration'.

It may surprise you but quite often pieces are published specifically to start or further discussion. This is one reason that many news organizations post opposing or responding view points from well known writers and from the general public.

I wonder if you've put your back out twisting into so many different positions?

She's drawing attention to a radically unhinged idea---and here I thought you were saying she was promoting it. And why is it so 'radically unhinged?' In fact, it was done at one of the most prominent news organizations in the world.

What is so 'radically unhinged?' Generally, there is a fixed amount of money available to be used for compensation for various workers. If there is an unfair distribution, how should it be redressed, if that pot of money doesn't increase? Because it doesn't always increase.

It seems rational to me. Also math literate. I thought you'd be a fan.

Then you say that she's got her political speak on and is being mealy mouth and hedging her bets. How does that go with advocating for something that is radically unhinged? It seems quit contradictory to me.

Notice the conditional sentence. You can tell that it is conditional because of the parts I bolded: it may be. May being the key word here. Hardly a rousing sentence advocating taking something away from men.

I see where I've gone wrong. Valenti wrote an entire article discussing an idea she opposes and sees no merit in.

Also not what I claimed. Isn't it possible to write an article discussing--I see you are backing away from your claim that she was advocating for this idea--without being solidly and firmly and whole heartedly on one side or the other?

I have no idea what it means to address an issue directly until you describe what it is you intend to do.

If an 'imbalance' is evident to management (how do you know something's unbalanced?), whether or not it should be addressed 'directly' or at all depends. For example, if management finds that their promotion and hiring practises are fair and unbiased, why should they take any 'direct action'? What would there be to act on?

Clearly you land hard on the side of hemming and hawing. In the example that was the foundation for Valenti's article, Abramson was management. She did find that there were unfair compensation practices at the NYT and she took direct action to correct it. Are you suggesting she needed to ask a man for permission?

Wow.

Again, she used the word 'if,' making this a conditional statement.

Yes, I can see she's being mealy-mouthed, but it's certainly the case that unless she can think of a better solution, she is ready and willing to support this one. Or rather, she is supporting this idea unless a better one comes along.

Wait a minute: You were saying that she was an avid supporter of this radical unhinged idea. How does that fit in with being 'mealy mouthed?' If one can use that term properly for the written word.

You seem confused. And also biased: mealy mouthed is not a term I've ever heard you use regarding something a man wrote. Nor is 'radically unhinged.' Loren is indeed your soul mate.

Again, notice the words temporarily unrealistic.

You know what the word 'temporarily' means, right? Valenti means the solution is currently unrealistic but won't be unrealistic in the future.

I think she's wrong about that (thank goodness).

How do you know what she means? So far, your interpretation skills have been pretty unimpressive.

However, I do also hope that in the future, people will be fairly compensated without regard to their gender instead of white men getting a boost because....that's how it's always been.

I do understand why you would think that if I or any other reasonably intelligent, decently well read, educated person agreed with your position that Valenti is promoting a radically unhinged solution that you would see this as a good thing. Sadly, you will simply have to make due with Derec and Loren as soul mates.

So you do advocate reducing men's salaries in an organisation until they are arithmetically on par with women's as a reasonable 'direct action'?

The last sentence is a genuine question, not a rhetorical device.

My preferred action would be to increase the pot of money available to use for compensation. That is not always realistic.

There is another point though: I can see that you think it would be unfair to take something away from men to improve the conditions of women who have been unfairly compensated. I understand that and am not unsympathetic. But here's the thing. Sometimes it takes being put in an uncomfortable position yourself to see things from someone else's point of view. It's all well and good to say that you think women should be paid what they are worth---and another if you think that might have uncomfortable consequences for yourself. And further, it is always educational to sometime be on the other side of things. If you are intelligent and willing, you gain some insight and understanding.

 

[Metaphor]

I wasn't inquiring about all questions or questions in general. I was asking about that specific question. Which is why I bolded 'the' in above. To draw your attention.

No, I do not think that specific question is a genuine question. It's a rhetorical device.

She's drawing attention to a radically unhinged idea---and here I thought you were saying she was promoting it.

I said that's the least she's doing, that's the absolute minimum that any reading of the text would lead you to. That's what your reading leads you to.

But my reading of the text is that she's advocating it.

And why is it so 'radically unhinged?' In fact, it was done at one of the most prominent news organizations in the world.

It's an idea built on false foundations, it is sexist, it creates mistrust, it violates distributive justice, it does nothing to address the problem.

What is so 'radically unhinged?' Generally, there is a fixed amount of money available to be used for compensation for various workers. If there is an unfair distribution, how should it be redressed, if that pot of money doesn't increase? Because it doesn't always increase.

What makes you think an unequal distribution is unfair?

It seems rational to me. Also math literate. I thought you'd be a fan.

Then you say that she's got her political speak on and is being mealy mouth and hedging her bets. How does that go with advocating for something that is radically unhinged? It seems quit contradictory to me.

Being mealy-mouthed is only possible when you have a position but are too afraid to own up to it fully.

Also not what I claimed. Isn't it possible to write an article discussing--I see you are backing away from your claim that she was advocating for this idea--without being solidly and firmly and whole heartedly on one side or the other?

I'm not backing away from the claim.

Clearly you land hard on the side of hemming and hawing. In the example that was the foundation for Valenti's article, Abramson was management. She did find that there were unfair compensation practices at the NYT and she took direct action to correct it. Are you suggesting she needed to ask a man for permission?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. That she 'gets permission' from a 'man' -- presumably any man, her husband, her father, the homeless guy on the street - to do it.

Holy fucking shit, Toni. Just when I think you can't get more absurd you start to tread Valenti territory.

The entirety of what Valenti's article describes is:

Over the weekend, former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson – fired in part, she says, over conversations about pay disparity – told a reporter that the best way for newsroom leaders with a limited budget to fix salary inequalities is to “bring the guys down to give a little more to the girls”.

“I did that at The Times. No one’s happy to get a cut, but too bad.”

It does not say that Abramson found 'unfair compensation'. Anywhere. All it says is that she cut men's salaries to increase women's.

Wow.

Too fucking right, 'wow'.

Wait a minute: You were saying that she was an avid supporter

Fuck your putting words in my mouth. I said she advocated it. If she were an avid supporter her words wouldn't be so mealy-mouthed.

of this radical unhinged idea. How does that fit in with being 'mealy mouthed?' If one can use that term properly for the written word.

You seem confused. And also biased: mealy mouthed is not a term I've ever heard you use regarding something a man wrote. Nor is 'radically unhinged.' Loren is indeed your soul mate.

You're right -- because you've never seen me write 'mealy-mouthed' before, and I use it once to describe a mealy-mouthed article, that's enough to establish to sexist bias on my part.

I wish you were trolling me, Toni.

How do you know what she means? So far, your interpretation skills have been pretty unimpressive.

Because words have meanings. Tell me, what do you think 'temporarily unrealistic' means, if not what I suggested?

However, I do also hope that in the future, people will be fairly compensated without regard to their gender instead of white men getting a boost because....that's how it's always been.

And you have evidence of this happening?

I'm a white man. Do you think I'm getting unfairly compensated?

My preferred action would be to increase the pot of money available to use for compensation. That is not always realistic.

There is another point though: I can see that you think it would be unfair to take something away from men to improve the conditions of women who have been unfairly compensated.

i) Establish that the compensation is unfair. Inequality does not mean unfair. You'll have to show more than inequality. (Indeed, equality of incomes could be unfair).
ii) Establish that the unfairness was because all men got a 'gender boost' unrelated to their merit, at the expense of women.
iii) Address the hiring and promotion practices that led to the unfairness
iv) Take away from men the portion of their salary that is unfairly given to them due to gender bias, and show your work.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

There is another point though: I can see that you think it would be unfair to take something away from men to improve the conditions of women who have been unfairly compensated.

"You can redress social injustice, as long as my unearned privilege stays intact."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

You seem to have missed the point. Corporations tell the employees not to discuss pay with each other. So this is an example of exposing when there is an unfair difference in how men and women are paid.

Observation#1: "If they did not pay the stated price, they are breaching a contract or just plain robbing you."

You are being way too literal or deliberately obtuse: They are just demonstrating unfairness by showing an example of equal work with different pay.

Observation#2: "Is this 65c lemonade the same product? What kind of idiot is this whitey who pays 50% more for the exact same product?"

Yes it's for the same product. Didn't you watch the video?

Continued: "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."

The gas-guzzling criminal is not behind bars because corporations often get their employees not to share pay/salary information with each other. So the transparent unfairness in the video isn't typically observed in the events when it is unfair.

Observation#3: "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?"

Again, too literal or deliberately obtuse. Since salaries/wages are negotiated, if corporations are typically offering less pay to women and all wages/salaries are not known on-hand by everyone during negotiations, then women collectively are not going to be able to equalize the gap. Knowledge is power in this instance.

Observation#4: "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."

In context, it said "for doing the same job" not "for having the same job title," so again it's about equal pay for equal work.

Ending question: "Is basic reasoning and critical thinking so difficult a discipline to master?"

You mean because you thought you'd misconstrue a message and then go on to blame all feminists for it in a political attempt to hyperbolize?

 

[Metaphor]

And who said resurrection of the dead was only for the Christians!

You seem to have missed the point. Corporations tell the employees not to discuss pay with each other. So this is an example of exposing when there is an unfair difference in how men and women are paid.

If the companies that truly believe there is an unfair pay differential want to address it, then those companies ought to make their employee's salaries public.

(I work for the public service, and neither my 'grade' or salary are a secret. And so I can tell you with absolute certainty there cannot be an unfair wage differential between men and women in the public service, unless one gender is systematically promoted above grade levels unjustified by their work.)

Observation#2: "Is this 65c lemonade the same product? What kind of idiot is this whitey who pays 50% more for the exact same product?"

Yes it's for the same product. Didn't you watch the video?

So it's the same product, but employers have a source where the product is cheaper, and yet they continue to pay above the odds (men's wages) for the exact same product because?

The gas-guzzling criminal is not behind bars because corporations often get their employees not to share pay/salary information with each other. So the transparent unfairness in the video isn't typically observed in the events when it is unfair.

Isn't the solution then for corporations who think they're being unfair to make employee salaries public?

Again, too literal or deliberately obtuse. Since salaries/wages are negotiated, if corporations are typically offering less pay to women and all wages/salaries are not known on-hand by everyone during negotiations, then women collectively are not going to be able to equalize the gap. Knowledge is power in this instance.

If you're sharing your remuneration with your coworkers then you'll be part of the solution. I certainly have no issue with that.

In context, it said "for doing the same job" not "for having the same job title," so again it's about equal pay for equal work.

I'm all for equal pay for work of equal value.

You mean because you thought you'd misconstrue a message and then go on to blame all feminists for it in a political attempt to hyperbolize?

They chose to spread a message with unexamined and unstated premises.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And who said resurrection of the dead was only for the Christians!

Blasting feminists never went away.

If the companies that truly believe there is an unfair pay differential want to address it, then those companies ought to make their employee's salaries public.

Companies don't.

(I work for the public service, and neither my 'grade' or salary are a secret. And so I can tell you with absolute certainty there cannot be an unfair wage differential between men and women in the public service, unless one gender is systematically promoted above grade levels unjustified by their work.)

Maybe the public sector is different or maybe it's different in Australia.

Observation#2: "Is this 65c lemonade the same product? What kind of idiot is this whitey who pays 50% more for the exact same product?"

Yes it's for the same product. Didn't you watch the video?

So it's the same product, but employers have a source where the product is cheaper, and yet they continue to pay above the odds (men's wages) for the exact same product because?

Presumably it's because old thinking hasn't completely died with everybody and to the same degree. That thinking would include "image" of gender, thus generally making men more marketable in fields that pay more. That seems to be what they meant by "things were always this way."

The gas-guzzling criminal is not behind bars because corporations often get their employees not to share pay/salary information with each other. So the transparent unfairness in the video isn't typically observed in the events when it is unfair.

Isn't the solution then for corporations who think they're being unfair to make employee salaries public?

Maybe or maybe not. But why would particular persons working for a corporation who benefit from this make a change?

Again, too literal or deliberately obtuse. Since salaries/wages are negotiated, if corporations are typically offering less pay to women and all wages/salaries are not known on-hand by everyone during negotiations, then women collectively are not going to be able to equalize the gap. Knowledge is power in this instance.

If you're sharing your remuneration with your coworkers then you'll be part of the solution. I certainly have no issue with that.

I think I agree.

In context, it said "for doing the same job" not "for having the same job title," so again it's about equal pay for equal work.

I'm all for equal pay for work of equal value.

I am all for equal pay for equal work. I don't think we need to state "value" but perhaps that is semantics unless you're using it to undeservedly critique a message.

You mean because you thought you'd misconstrue a message and then go on to blame all feminists for it in a political attempt to hyperbolize?

They chose to spread a message with unexamined and unstated premises.

One of the premises you seem to be discussing was analogized in the metaphor which is why there were comments such as "don't talk about that" in two different places.

In any case, nothing is perfect and you didn't make a thread called "Feminist PSA about gender pay gap could be a little better."

 

[thebeave]

In case there's anyone left who doesn't think feminists have gone off the deep end, I present you this:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/07/feds-paid-709000-to-academic-who-studies-how-glaciers-are-sexist/?_utm_source=1-2-2

Academics at the University of Oregon have determined that glaciers and the science that studies them are deeply sexist.

“Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions,” reads the paper’s abstract. The research was published in the peer-reviewed journal Progress in Human Geography in January.

“Who knew there was such a thing as ‘feminist glaciology?'”Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “I can’t satirize it. The scientists do that in their own abstract.”

P.S. This is not The Onion

 

[Arctish]

Feminist glaciology

In the 19th century, glaciologist John Tyndall prevailed in early scientific debates about glacier motion—in part because Tyndall was a more prestigious and accomplished mountaineer than his scientific rival James Forbes. Historian Bruce Hevly concludes that manly mountaineering feats influenced the credibility of Tyndall’s science. [Ed. Note: This was called the “Great Glacier Controversy”: Forbes had contended that glaciers “flow” and can behave plastically; Tyndall contended that they move by thawing and refreezing. Both were somewhat right.]

A century later, when the first all-women scientific expedition went to Antarctica from Ohio State University in 1969, journalists worried that they would be “lonely” or suffer a run in with a “mad seal.” At the same time, men were portrayed as risking death to unlock the continent’s “awesome secrets.”

Our paper suggests that these broader societal classifications have historically influenced the reception of science [conducted by women]—with men’s science more valued. We then ask whether these kinds of societal values about gender still influence science and scientists’ credibility. Do we still privilege the heroic, risk-taking, conquest-oriented scientific projects (like data gathering in remote parts of Antarctica) over more “mundane” projects that don’t involve adventure and risk into wild nature? Note that we are talking about how broader sociocultural values influence the reception and perception of science, not about individual scientists and whether their science is valuable or solid, which is not the point.

 

[barbos]

In case there's anyone left who doesn't think feminists have gone off the deep end, I present you this:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/07/feds-paid-709000-to-academic-who-studies-how-glaciers-are-sexist/?_utm_source=1-2-2

“Who knew there was such a thing as ‘feminist glaciology?'”Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “I can’t satirize it. The scientists do that in their own abstract.”

P.S. This is not The Onion

What is it then?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why should I trust what the OP says when they claim an entire group of people behaves in a certain way?