Verily so about the minimizing part. But my content wasn't so much minimizing as it was pointing out a need for more (I should say unique or more useful) information. Besides that, I don't think the variation is significant--it is proven women are discriminated against so what if the data is off by a few percentage points? With that said, it is a good and valid statistic, even if imperfect; and, it does prove that discrimination happens. That isn't minimizing.

Could I have phrased that a bit clearer? I doubt it...anything that remotely smells like "minimizing," regardless of if it is true or not, is enough to bring out the illumination!

As far as waterboarding... Let me make an example of how I communicate sometimes.

"Yeah, waterboarding is horrible but it doesn't happen often." <<<< I don't see that as minimizing. I think it is trying to state a truth... However, everybody would scream that I am minimizing the truth and should be waterboarded
However, this is minimizing >>>>>>"I don't see what the problem is. It's just a dunk and leaves no lasting physical damage." Vastly enormous difference.

Waterboarding is torture. Period. It's a psychological beating. But does it happen often? (I don't know enough about the frequency of use, I just used the statement as an example for debate.) Just suggest that it doesn't and the lynching begins. "Once is too much!" Agreed, but once is still not often.

I think we look at comments and generalize...

berti's stats, no matter where they came from have one relative fault--they don't point anything new that would change a perspective. Two things have changed my perspective.

1-The comparisons of jobs between women versus men, and women versus women. Last one being the most important. And 2-the exclusion of part-time work.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw data is fun.
I'm glad you found my data so useful, but honestly BLS is where you wanna go for any labor-related stats, and some of the charts berti pointed to were using the BLS datasets I pointed you to.
To try to explain why people are coming out of the woodwork to protest, I'd point to this passage of your post:

I just used my wife and I as an example of how skewered statistics could be. I know there is real wage discrimination and this post in no way disputes or marginalizes it; however, it does make me wonder how inaccurate studies can be. I know women are kept down in jobs so they cannot rise.
I just think the truth lies somewhere in the middle--women are discriminated against, but not as much as we like to make it out to be.

This kinda thing just rubs us lefties the wrong way. People are constantly trying to minimize the issues liberals care about. We hear it from Heritage about poverty (it's not so bad, they have TV's!), we hear it about waterboarding (it's just a dunk in water!), and we hear it about global warming (see, it still snows in winter!).
We're extra sensitive to people doing that on issues we think we've already convinced the public are a problem, like the gender wage gap.

@Lawdeedaw data is fun.

I'm glad you found my data so useful, but honestly BLS is where you wanna go for any labor-related stats, and some of the charts berti pointed to were using the BLS datasets I pointed you to.

To try to explain why people are coming out of the woodwork to protest, I'd point to this passage of your post:

I just used my wife and I as an example of how skewered statistics could be. I know there is real wage discrimination and this post in no way disputes or marginalizes it; however, it does make me wonder how inaccurate studies can be. I know women are kept down in jobs so they cannot rise.

I just think the truth lies somewhere in the middle--women are discriminated against, but not as much as we like to make it out to be.

This kinda thing just rubs us lefties the wrong way. People are constantly trying to minimize the issues liberals care about. We hear it from Heritage about poverty (it's not so bad, they have TV's!), we hear it about waterboarding (it's just a dunk in water!), and we hear it about global warming (see, it still snows in winter!).

We're extra sensitive to people doing that on issues we think we've already convinced the public are a problem, like the gender wage gap.

>> ^berticus:

wow.


I know--I just felt the need to rack my brain in explanation berticus. In all fairness I thought the comments sent at me cheap but I also realize that others don't find them insulting. Problem is we (I include myself) just don't stop to ask what the other person means. I would have taken no offense to you asking if I was attacking the stats with my personal story. Or even asking if I was using my personal story to prove the wage gap untrue. Instead it seemed sarcastic and demeaning the way you put it (Not to mention you didn't go lite on the sarcasm either.)

I still like your opinions though, in a completely man-on-man way

So you just don't buy it, based on your personal experience, right? You're generalizing trends based just on what you've seen and what you've experienced in your own home. This is a logical fallacy based on converse accident. You even say in your second statement, "First of all, maybe my house is different..." So right there you're admitting that your situation may be the exception rather than the rule. And it most certainly is.

First of all, the gender wage gap exists:

1. Women’s Earnings Fall; U.S. Census Bureau Finds Rising Gender Wage Gap
2. Statistics Canada: Average earnings by sex and work pattern
3. Statistics Norway: Gender Gap
4. Swedish National Mediation Office: Report examines gender pay gap

And there are more studies where those came from.

Secondly, in most cases (but certainly not all), women do more child rearing and housekeeping in two-income households. (I know this isn't the '50s. I never said it was, nor even came close to implying it. If it were the '50s then most households would be single-income.)

1. Time Crunch for Female Scientists: They Do More Housework Than Men
2. Working women do more chores than men
3. Women Do More Housework, Men Less Upon Marriage
4. Single women 'do less housework'
5. Married women unite! Husbands do less housework

And so on.

Equality has not been reached yet for most women in most careers and in most households. The video above tells a small part of this story, in an incisive manner. Though some may suggest that it is, it is not sexist to point out sexism, just like it's not racist to point out racism. To live in denial of the facts does not help solve the problem.
>> ^Sagemind:

I was hoping not to get into the whole gender argument but I have to chime in.
First of all, maybe my home is different but...
Yes, I find this comparison way off.
When my kids were babies, I took just as much care of them as my wife and sometimes more so.
I was the one who got up in the night with them, even when my wife was on maturity leave.
I changed the diapers most of the time.
I was working low paying jobs while my wife made a good union wage.
At one point, It was I who had to quit my job to be home with them while my wife worked.
I do almost all of the cooking.
Until my current job, my wife's income almost doubled mine
I could go on and on but the point is, many of my friends are the same. The 50s roles of mom and dad don't exist any more. Life has become a two income home for most of us and many cases, we work extra jobs on the side just to make ends meet. (3.5 income home). In most homes I know, the dads are very active in raising the children and keeping the house clean etc.
I understand this "Men with higher incomes world exists, I've just never seen it. I see many wives and woman in general out there in the work force making the same wage as the men. I know of many men out there that can't get a decent job that pays above poverty level and many more women out there with good union paying jobs. Yes, I've seen some women out there that don't work and stay with the children - out of choice - My wife hates working (as do we all), and would rather be at home full-time with the kids.
Life just doesn't work that way - we have to pay bills in a world where 2, 3 and four income households are becoming the norm. If in some fantastic world, I managed to double my wage and bring home enough money so my wife could quit working and be at home full time, wouldn't that skew the statistics? I would be that man who made more money than the woman, and she would be that woman who (choosing not to work) made less money.
But it doesn't matter, I don't live in a world where a single income can pay for a family of four.
We both work, We both volunteer, We both look after the kids and we both look after domestic chores. We both have the capability to make the full paycheck. I'd say we both have the same privileges of status.
Out of the fist ten friends that come to mind, the wife make more money (or equal amounts) in seven of those families.
In one, the wife doesn't work due to depression and stays home with the kids.
One works part time - and stays home with the kids by choice
And one just makes less money because of the choice of job she chooses.
So, for the average family, I just don't buy it. Maybe it used to be true but in today's world, if one spouse makes less money, it's because they made a choice at some point to either take a lower paying job or didn't train for better.
While there are many excuses, we are way past the days where we can blame domestic life as an excuse to hold women back. Just as there are many excuses as to why some men are the same.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^Maybe you haven't heard, but women still do the majority of child rearing and housekeeping in 2-income homes.
And the score indicates that women make less money not because of their additional responsibilities at home, but because of sexism. Maybe you also haven't heard, but women make significantly less money than their male peers.

>> ^Tagichatn:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I don't know where you people work, but were I work there are a lot of women who make 3 more digits than I do. They also have a shit ton more responsibility than I.
Perhaps it is a stereotype I'm unaware of. Perhaps that's because the places I've worked measure many things. To judge someone by their Sex is a terminable issue, the standard of evidence is even less than what the courts require in civil cases.
That's not to say it doesn't happen.
Anyone who has a problem with female peers doesn't understand that sex has no matter when it comes to doing your job and succeeding at it. I think that any corporate workplace with a bias to gender, or sexuality is an unworthy, and disgusting place work at.
But on the other hand, share-holders don't give a shit what gender you are; only that you bring in the money.

I'm glad that your one anecdote means that women have nothing to worry about. Women, on average, get paid less than men. There are plenty of studies to back that up. Women are less likely to be hired if they have children and less likely to be hired even if they don't on the expectation that they will have children. Obviously if they're the primary caregiver, they have less time for work and they get maternity leave. Less time working means less promotions and so on which is part of the reason for the wage gap. Companies are reluctant to hire women for important positions regardless if they're good or not even if shareholders only care about money. Take a look at how many women are CEOs. Do you think that it's because women are just not as good as men as managing companies?
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.


I guess that's exactly what I said, isn't it. That women don't have a thing to worry about. Huh, maybe so. I just read my comment again, I missed the part where I said they don't have anything to worry about. I did say that specific places of occupation do not have a gender bias.

It's funny now that you mention it. That men don't get paternity leave, because the company I work for allows for that.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/index.htm

>> ^NordlichReiter:

I don't know where you people work, but were I work there are a lot of women who make 3 more digits than I do. They also have a shit ton more responsibility than I.
Perhaps it is a stereotype I'm unaware of. Perhaps that's because the places I've worked measure many things. To judge someone by their Sex is a terminable issue, the standard of evidence is even less than what the courts require in civil cases.
That's not to say it doesn't happen.
Anyone who has a problem with female peers doesn't understand that sex has no matter when it comes to doing your job and succeeding at it. I think that any corporate workplace with a bias to gender, or sexuality is an unworthy, and disgusting place work at.
But on the other hand, share-holders don't give a shit what gender you are; only that you bring in the money.


I'm glad that your one anecdote means that women have nothing to worry about. Women, on average, get paid less than men. There are plenty of studies to back that up. Women are less likely to be hired if they have children and less likely to be hired even if they don't on the expectation that they will have children. Obviously if they're the primary caregiver, they have less time for work and they get maternity leave. Less time working means less promotions and so on which is part of the reason for the wage gap. Companies are reluctant to hire women for important positions regardless if they're good or not even if shareholders only care about money. Take a look at how many women are CEOs. Do you think that it's because women are just not as good as men as managing companies?

Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.

Social equality is not the mathematical term of equity.

I looked into this a few years ago. I think this video has liberal helpings of LAME ASS STATISTICS.

I did find some evidence to support the type of jobs men take generally pay more - but I also found lots of evidence that there was still a very real wage gap for equivalent performance/roles. So if you are going to bring behavior of a female to tend to toward comfortable jobs, then you have to bring in the tendency of males to make a given workplace their dominion - and try and own it. And then you have to ask, ok how much of that is biological, and how much is cultural? And then you gotta ask, who cares if a man has a biological predisposition to attempt to own a given situation - doesn't make it right.

So in the end, you have to actively strive for equivalence between two distinct groups - not equity. And because both groups are different, you are never going to just hit balance - and relax, you are always going to have "feminists", or "dad clubs" or whatever attempting to keep the balance.

But Im not going to bother getting into an argument.

Thanks Krupo, that Wikipedia link certainly has opened my eyes. For those of you who were too lazy to read the article before upvoting his comment, here's a quote:

"Two questions naturally arise: (1) is there actually a wage gap disparity and, if so, where? The answer is no. Now Tits or GTFO.(2) why and how has it arisen or maintained itself? I already told you, the answer is no. *slap* I ONLY DO THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU *slap*. Over time, two points of view have availed themselves: one that credits the difference to questions of personal choice, and another that ties the disparity to continuing or vestigial bias or discrimination."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_women#Gender_Wage_Equity_in_the_United_States

This is pretty damn *dark.

Of course having this happen in the same job with the same experience/performance is simply criminal.

As much as you can cite Wiki, the "eliminate the variables" scenario for first world countries makes a video like this crazy:
"The "Choice" Theory

There have been studies published which have shown that once variables have been removed, pay for men and women with the same experience and education is virtually identical"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_women

Going further, "In a free market capitalist economy this wage gap would quickly be exploited. Corporations could hire only females and return the reduced labor costs to share holders."

So unless you're going to take a trip down the very perilous pay equity route (as compared to pay equality), is there really a need for such an insulting PSA?