For best results, throw Silk directly into your face. DO NOT INGEST SILK. If accidentally ingested, contact a doctor immediately.

*promote

Man, I wish this weren't *dead.

I can't remember if this was the same video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXZ0DxhuT5Y

*promote

This isn't the U.S. Congress, it's a state legislature -- The Illinois House of Representatives. The ranting representative is Mike Bost, representing Illinois's 115th District.

This was exactly as horrifying as I expected.

Sorry, but *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/35-yrs-constructing-San-Francisco-replica-out-of-toothpicks

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."

I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.

I was really tempted to downvote comments for falsehood here, but I think responding to those falsehoods may end up being more valuable. Also because @NetRunner shouldn't have to be the only one arguing in favor of equality.

>> ^Trancecoach:

And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

This is demonstrably false -- In fact, they address it in the clip. Using the most complex models with as many variables as possible, there is still a massive gap in pay that cannot be accounted for by economic class, lifestyle choice, occupation, or any other variable. These studies don't just look at aggregate figures, even though the data is almost always presented that way. When you have two people of opposite gender in the same position, the woman will almost always make considerably less than the man.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Farrell does offer some explanations for the wage disparity and, like me, feels it's unacceptable, morally. We (You, Rachel, Warren, and myself) could all, essentially, cite the very same statistics and studies and draw different interpretations and conclusions from the data which clearly demonstrates the disparity in wages on the basis of gender. While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


Your comment that you can draw different conclusions from the same statistics is meaningless unless you actually do it -- That is, produce your own analysis based on the data or find someone who has. Otherwise it's akin to saying "You can use statistics to prove anything, so we should disregard any conclusions people have drawn from them." You can dismiss any conclusion or evidence in this fashion, and it has no place in a rational discussion.

I haven't read Farrell's work, so I'm going to have to infer his arguments based on what you've written about him. It sounds like what he's presenting is a guide to how women end up making less based on lifestyle choices -- Choosing to stay with a child instead of going to work, choosing not to take a better paying job elsewhere to stay near family, choosing (involuntarily) not to fight as hard for a raise as her male coworkers, etc. This information can be used successfully to avoid making those choices or to mitigate them, and avoid falling into the "lower pay" traps.

This is certainly useful information, but it is not a valid basis for justifying a pay gap. The fallacy with that argument is that it necessarily presupposes that your pay for a particular job should depend on how you got that job. Let's say we have a man from a somewhat wealthy family that traveled a lot after college and so entered the workforce late, received adequate performance reviews, changed companies a couple of times, and now is in his mid-30s as a middle manager in a financial firm. Let's also take a woman from a lower-middle class family who worked hard to get a Masters degree and started at a financial services firm but had to take time off to care for an ailing family member and put her career on hold for a few years to have children, and now in her mid-30s has found herself in the same middle manager position at the same firm.

Given that premise, statistics tell us that the man will almost certainly be making more than the woman -- Possibly even 25% more. You could argue that the man likely has more pull at the company because of his family's wealth and that the woman made poor choices (earnings wise) by putting her career on hold for so long, but the fact is that they are both in the same position doing the same thing. The law doesn't care how your career went and how you ended up in your job; it clearly states that for the same work men and women should be paid equally, and the woman in this scenario is the target of discrimination.

*length=52

I guess this "fox hunt" is a step up from that other hunting we had out west not too long ago:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=101053&page=1#.T5_6SFIZ-U4

"The hunter that day claimed to be a businessman from Hawaii named Frank who said he'd paid $10,000 for the experience. He was provided with a paintball gun and ammunition and lined up at one end of the course. Within 10 minutes, he spotted the two women, who were naked except for sneakers and protective goggles."

Congratulations on reaching Ruby!

Thanks for clarifying, siftbot!