I do a lot of one handed typing , but a foot massage and all this?
Wow, talk about multitasking!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I do a lot of one handed typing , but a foot massage and all this?
Wow, talk about multitasking!


Jesus that's funny!

Dotdude brought up this vid... http://videosift.com/video/Equal-Pay-Commercial

Edit added later
@Stormsinger @NetRunner too...

I was noting a personal observation--not what is the norm. I am kind of soliciting for some info too because as far as the data that is available, it all kind of fails. Now, if you must--- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbYKNpsFVMk&feature=player_embedded

But seriously, I am not making proof of fact here--just trying to note that the data everyone uses as "iron-clad" proof might be a little BS... I bring this up because I am always pointed towards this data in debate and/or to put me in my place...

Anecdotes are not data...repeat.

Data.

>> ^NetRunner:

Data.


Good, something with just full time jobs! Ted, I love you. Thanks for the Data Netrunner. I love you too

On a side note, and something I just noticed from reading this data, it seems that in certain jobs the gap is significantly lowered. By more than 50% in some cases! Holy shit! I wonder if this is due to the "type" of women who gravitate towards certain jobs? I.e., are the women in health and education services more inclined to put personal affairs (Like family, you know, the important stuff,) above work, while the construction workers actually put their jobs ahead?

I am in no way saying women are lazy or ineffective, if indeed what I speculate on is even true in the first place. I myself am forgoing promotions (I.e., $$$'s) BECAUSE I am putting my family first (It's also why I consulted my wife and she decided to become a stay-at-home mother.) Fuck you capitalism, I don't need your dirty money!

I wonder if women do the same as me, more so then most men, specifically in the more education-required jobs?

If any woman on the sift passed up a promotion for something more important I'd like to hear about it... Or if any women on the sift got passed up for some blatant sexist reasons? I would be interested in hearing about that too. Like I said, we learn through perspective (And Netrunner's links.)

@Lawdeedaw more data.

Highlights from more data.

I haven't read much of what's at these links, but I'm guessing since it's a compilation of data it won't really try to answer "why" type questions.

Wikipedia seems to have some links to studies that try to dig into what factors are and are not involved. Mostly they try to account for the factors you raise as alternatives to some form of sexism, and find that it doesn't explain the whole difference.

Oh, and it's not TED as in TED Talks, it's actually TED, the blog of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's the same government agency that puts out the official unemployment statistics (aka "jobs reports").

I'll just add a little more data about wage disparity as a function of one's gender and qualifications:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/09/a-y-chromosome-is-worth-the-same-as-a-ph-d/

yet more data and lo and behold even more data.

i'm .. a little amazed that you even posted this, actually. i mean, i guess i'm just left wondering why people don't see that their anecdotal stories are outliers? i see this happen all the time. "well the data don't fit with MY experience!" -- yes, congratulations, welcome to what is probably the tail end of a normal distribution.

actually, everyone should see those data.

My fiancée makes more than I ever have. I'm totally cool with that.

>> ^berticus:

yet more data and lo and behold even more data.
i'm .. a little amazed that you even posted this, actually. i mean, i guess i'm just left wondering why people don't see that their anecdotal stories are outliers? i see this happen all the time. "well the data don't fit with MY experience!" -- yes, congratulations, welcome to what is probably the tail end of a normal distribution.
actually, everyone should see those data.


OKAY, now I am starting to get annoyed... I was nice to @Stormsinger when she confused my post with using anecdotal evidence. I NEVER USED MY PERSONAL SITUATION TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING. THAT WOULD BE anecdotal AND I DON'T RELY ON THAT. WELCOME TO MISREADING AN ARGUMENT BERTI.

I capitalize and bolden ^^ that section not because I am mad, but so you won't A-You won't misunderstand my argument, b-take it out of context, or C-focus on the other shiny useless shit in my post.

I agreed that gender discrimination happens and happens quite often. Yet nobody gives a shit about that. It seems people bring up these red herrings just to piss off the other side to make them quit making observations. Funny part is--I am on the side that wage-discrimination happens!

"I just used my wife and I as an example of how skewered statistics could be. I know there is real wage discrimination (I.E., that the statistics are in fact making a TRUE point,) and this post in no way disputes or marginalizes it; however, it does make me wonder how inaccurate studies (I.E., any study, and every study,) can be. I know women are kept down in jobs so they cannot rise." Yes, it makes me wonder. That's my point. Wage discrimination happens! But I wonder how much more and more importantly than even statistics--WHY!

How skewered statistics can be...my main point. Anyways, I wanted the data @NetRunner provided--which excluded part-time bullshit from the statistics. Thanks Berti, for providing the same cookie-cutter information everyone could find on the internet. The bullshit that doesn't matter because it's so broad. @NetRunner's information was more focused and therefore more useful than all of everyone's other links combined (Although I did appreciate that information nevertheless.)

The information may not answer "Why" per se, but it does limit the skewered excuses of the other side of the argument. And, and Berti, part of "why" is already answered--some women are discriminated against.

Sorry if this seems like an attack on you--it's not. What it is? My annoyance that people use this same argument over and over--even when it doesn't apply. You just focused on the wrong sections of my post--that's all. It just annoys me...that and dropping my ice-cream Snickers cake...

@blankfist --yeah, it was sooooo nice when my wife made more than me....stupid three kids...stupid stay-at-home-and-raise-them-right attitude Seriously, there is a part of me that misses the extra cash.

@NetRunner, I read Wiki's study and find it useless. However, I do believe the "why" is more useful than the numbers themselves. Sadly, we cannot know the "why" because everyone's "why" varies considerably.

Back to the main topic at hand. I wasn't implying that there even is a legitimate "why" that women make less money than men when I posed a question in regard to your statistics. (I.e., like some women working less so they can spend time with their families.)

I did wonder why women in some fields vastly outperform other women in different fields? That isn't about sex...it just amazed me is all. Why do they succeed in bridging the gap so much better? Anyways, it was a personal musing to oneself aloud.

Also, why do Asian women kick Anglo women's asses? I can see why Anglo women kick African American's asses--because the decks are stacked against minorities...

wow.

>> ^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

Moving this post out of main Sift Talk.

if you're looking for anecdotes of women passing up opportunities to take care of kids... or being fucked because they kids or a vagina... i got both.

I passed up a seemingly lucrative middle-management position in healthcare so that i could stay home during the week with my kids when they were both too young for school. I opted instead for the 40 hours in 2.5 days overnight on the weekend shift. Granted, I had no desire to be anyone's manager ever. But it would have been more money and improved job stability.

Also, at the exact same company... I was eventually promoted into CT scan... where I was systematically treated like horse shit. Mostly for having a young child-bearing vagina. All 3 single dads in my department were given 20% wage increases at some point or another because they had to "pay child support" ... as if, as a single mom, 100% of my fucking wages didn't go to the care of my children. And then, the CT department held monthly team meetings during the week. I had to miss one because my youngest, asthmatic child had pneumonia. My slag of a boss attempts to write me up for missing a meeting. and then I find out that one of my coworkers (a man) never ever has to attend meetings because he works nights and is home with his children during meeting hours. Well, so was I. When I brought this up to my boss, she tore up my write up. AND THEN, when my regular coworker would take a night off work, I'd always be scheduled to work with this one creep who would do creep things like... pin me up against the wall and tell me how he likes to be touched, talk about my tits, touch my ass every time i leaned across a counter and try to fuck me in break room when we didn't have any patients. He wouldn't quit so I finally told my boss if she scheduled him with me again, I was going to call in sick.... so that cunt calls me 2 weeks later and threatens me ... i recorded that phone call and turned it over to her bosses... then i found out that the creepy guy was pulling the same shit on the $9/hr file clerks and my boss also ignored their complaints. I brought this to the director of the department's attention... I was fired 3 weeks later. After 8 years with 0 write-ups, I was fired for insubordination.
guess who works my shift full time now?????


oh an that same boss would tell me things like "i had 4 days a week to be a mother" when i had to call in an on call tech ONE TIME IN 8 YEARS because my kid had pneumonia.

also, it is extremely rare for a company to provide child care... your wife is very fortunate. it is not at all rare on the other hand for companies to avoid hiring single mothers.

Thank you peggedbea--that's exactly the kind of quality post I wanted in the comments! I can only learn to sympathize by hearing about the hardships other people have face. Sorry it happened, but glad you shared it.

I bet it is not rare to avoid hiring single mothers. It is also not rare to have a breast pumping policy (Which, I am an avid supporter of women's right to breastfeed and pump milk at the workplace.)

>> ^peggedbea:

if you're looking for anecdotes of women passing up opportunities to take care of kids... or being fucked because they kids or a vagina... i got both.
I passed up a seemingly lucrative middle-management position in healthcare so that i could stay home during the week with my kids when they were both too young for school. I opted instead for the 40 hours in 2.5 days overnight on the weekend shift. Granted, I had no desire to be anyone's manager ever. But it would have been more money and improved job stability.
Also, at the exact same company... I was eventually promoted into CT scan... where I was systematically treated like horse shit. Mostly for having a young child-bearing vagina. All 3 single dads in my department were given 20% wage increases at some point or another because they had to "pay child support" ... as if, as a single mom, 100% of my fucking wages didn't go to the care of my children. And then, the CT department held monthly team meetings during the week. I had to miss one because my youngest, asthmatic child had pneumonia. My slag of a boss attempts to write me up for missing a meeting. and then I find out that one of my coworkers (a man) never ever has to attend meetings because he works nights and is home with his children during meeting hours. Well, so was I. When I brought this up to my boss, she tore up my write up. AND THEN, when my regular coworker would take a night off work, I'd always be scheduled to work with this one creep who would do creep things like... pin me up against the wall and tell me how he likes to be touched, talk about my tits, touch my ass every time i leaned across a counter and try to fuck me in break room when we didn't have any patients. He wouldn't quit so I finally told my boss if she scheduled him with me again, I was going to call in sick.... so that cunt calls me 2 weeks later and threatens me ... i recorded that phone call and turned it over to her bosses... then i found out that the creepy guy was pulling the same shit on the $9/hr file clerks and my boss also ignored their complaints. I brought this to the director of the department's attention... I was fired 3 weeks later. After 8 years with 0 write-ups, I was fired for insubordination.
guess who works my shift full time now?????

oh an that same boss would tell me things like "i had 4 days a week to be a mother" when i had to call in an on call tech ONE TIME IN 8 YEARS because my kid had pneumonia.
also, it is extremely rare for a company to provide child care... your wife is very fortunate. it is not at all rare on the other hand for companies to avoid hiring single mothers.

oh btw, that stupid story has a happy ending.

I had enough dirt on that company to have my termination changed to a lay off, be granted a severance package and a nice stipend for my trouble and given unemployment. It is also the best damn thing that ever happened to us. I don't know if I would've had the balls to risk instability to go to grad school and start my own business... where no one can ever ever fire me again for not wanting to be groped.

@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.

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.

@Lawdeedaw, I figured you didn't mean anything by it, I'm just trying to point out what's raising people's hackles about what you said.

@Lawdeedaw,
Just a few points now that I have the time...

1) Not that it's a big deal, but I'm definitely male (or at least so my wife believes). I know the avatar is a bit misleading, but I liked the image.

2) I wondered after I posted if I had missed your point, but then again, I'm -still- not really sure what your point is. Outliers simply don't demonstrate that statistics are skewed. Showing errors in the studies do that. Outliers just prove what anyone with any knowledge of statistics already knows; statistics are not true of all of the population. They don't claim to be, they simply allow us to look at trends and general cases. If they were always true, we wouldn't need a statistical analysis, we'd simply state the fact.

3) The value of statistics aren't necessarily measured by how much new information they reveal. The
fact that things haven't changed is still valuable information. Just like a thermometer won't change anyone's opinion on whether the room is too hot or too cold...it just gives you an objective measurement. Opinions and perspectives are subjective; which is a horse of a completely different color.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw, I figured you didn't mean anything by it, I'm just trying to point out what's raising people's hackles about what you said.


I know Net, which brings up a thank you from me. All information is appreciated.


One thing I find is that all sides either minimize or maximize their points and I try to stay away from those generalizations. Especially here on the sift.


I.e., religion has been responsible for so nearly all the wars in history. I.e., Atheists have higher IQs than religious people...
I.e., Cops are authority-driven assholes...
And last but not least, I.e., Universal healthcare is necessary in America and would solve the healthcare dilemma.
Now, I could be accused of minimizing the impacts of Universal healthcare, but I think that's a bit backwards and it is instead maximized (At least on the sift...) What say you? Is it a blend of both sides (That the pro-universal healthcare side applauds it unfairly while the anti-universal healthcare demeans it unfairly?)


Either way, I will take what you said into consideration so as to not insult people.

@Lawdeedaw, I'm glad I could be of some help, you're welcome.

People tend to get upset when you generalize about an entire group of people, especially if the defining characteristic of the group is something that wasn't a matter of choice (e.g. race, gender, height, sexual orientation, eye color, etc.).

I say talking about public policy is a whole other category of conversation. Personally I think the theory that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle is pretty much bogus. Even if you make the reasonable assumption that both sides are telling lies to amplify their position, it's a mistake to assume those lies are always equal.

Taking your health care example, the most extreme lefties were saying some rather radical things about single payer health care (Medicare for everyone). They'd say it'd improve overall care, reduce costs, and make health care accessible to all.

The other side says it'll mean the government "comes between you and your doctor", it'll mean death panels, it'll lead to genocide, and the end of freedom itself. Not only that, it won't even cut costs, it'll just mean more taxes, and worse care.

I don't think it's reasonable to look at those things and say "the truth is in the middle." For example, is Canada a genocidal totalitarian socialist state that's executing its elderly? Is France?

How about the slightly less crazy-sounding stuff. Are they spending a higher share of their GDP on health care than we are? How do medical professionals rate the quality of care there? How are health outcomes generally (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.)? Do they offer that health care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay?

If women could legally be paid less than men for the same work, all men would be fired by evil rich bosses (male, of course) who would then get to watch women all day.