SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I came across this piece on Scott Adam's blog and found it quite interesting. Thought others here might find it interesting too:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war#_=_
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn't religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I'm not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I'm designed that way. I'm a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.
Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don't recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.
If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:01AM
You're right, my bad; should have checked that source before I quoted it. The proper number is women work 69% the hours men work [bls.gov]. The 77% number was out of the mouth of every feminist ever, including the President. I'll take them at their word.
Now you may say "but less women have jobs than men!!!1!1!!eleven!". That's true. That bullshit 77% number is what women made period vs what men made period. So, factoring in only those actually working [dol.gov] and accounting for hours worked, each man made 83% on average what his average female counterpart did per hour. Looks like I'll be hitting Juggs up for a 17% raise instead of a 1% raise.
Facts. Ain't they just motherfuckers when they run contrary to your narrative?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:28AM
As a very wise person once said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Now we can add "Mighty Buzzard with statistics." Do you knot thing that wen thy comparizoned wymen's wages for equyl work it wassnt this all convoluted by numbers and such? Apples and oranges? Pears and bananas? Why is Dogbert a dog, anyway?
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:54AM
You're absolutely right. My statistics do not take into account experience or education or apples to apples jobs. Which has been a major beef from MRAs about the bullshit 77% statistic. And it's why I gave the feminists a bit of their own medicine back upside the chops just now.
Now there have been studies done that took all these things into account as well as hours worked and the like. Know what they found? There is no significant statistical difference [huffingtonpost.com] in pay rates when you actually account for everything possible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:02AM
And it's why I gave the feminists a bit of their own medicine back upside the chops just now.
You would strike a woman? You, sir, are a cad and a bounder, who does not understand in the slightest what it means to be a man, let alone a proper gentle-man! Notice the prefix. I would suggest, that if you are so threatened by "feminists" as to feel a need to resort to blows, that you be my guest instead, and I will gladly knock you on your misogynist ass.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:46PM
All this study shows is that for "male and female college graduates one year after graduation," the wage gap is "only 7%."
So 1: It does exist and 7% is statistically relevant.
And 2: To get even this close you have to cherry pick the hell out of the data set.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:15PM
Not really. Not when you consider women have far less self-confidence on average than men and that self-confidence is not just good but absolutely necessary in business. Honestly, I'd expect there to be a larger margin. That there isn't means women are getting paid more than they're worth.
You were bitching about the data not being apples to apples and now you're bitching when someone makes the attempt? Pick an argument, you don't get both.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:28PM
You were bitching about the data not being apples to apples and now you're bitching when someone makes the attempt?
No, I challenged you to provide some evidence for your claim that the wage gap doesn't exist. The best you could do is reduce the gap to 7% (in entry level positions only).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:08PM
Normally I'd take you up on your offer because I've seen a study done more than twenty years ago that narrows it to a statistically insignificant amount but it's nap time for me and, really, the burden of proof is not on me. As the accuser, you're the one who has to prove it does exist. Without resorting to bullshit numbers that take almost no factors of actual life into account, thank you. Really prove it exists.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:38AM
I fully expect this post to be modded flamebait just like the last one. I'll double down on your analysis: Women have 70-95%* of the purchasing power in the US.
It really doesn't matter if men make more money. Men could make 40% more than women and women would still be better off. Assuming the average of 80% and equal pay is realized, that means the average woman in the US would spend 100% of her own money and then spends 60% of a man's money on top of that. What is the value of money if you don't get to spend it? Maybe we should be talking about the massive spending gap instead of the mythical wage gap.
*Depending on who you believe: Forbes 70-80, WSJ 80+, She-conomy and a few associated women's rights organizations say 95%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:51AM
What is the value of money if you don't get to spend it?
How about saving it and properly investing it so that you can become financially independent and retire significantly early? But clearly wasting your money on frivolous nonsense is more important. You need to Consume to be happy, Consumer!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:06AM
How about saving it and properly investing it so that you can become financially independent and retire significantly early?
And die as soon as possible thus relieving the earth of your pathetic and meaningless existence. Yes, retirement. Ha.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:21PM
If I save my own money and retire early, that's up to me.
And you seem to assume that the only useful people are those who are wage slaves. Why? A lot of that work is utterly useless. In my retirement, I have worked on many free software projects and did lots of volunteer work, which benefits others. So why do you assume you have to be a corporate drone to be useful? Is that the result of indoctrination?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:29AM
As the old saw goes, women have half the money and all the pussy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:35AM
Data I've been working with supports the 77% number on an hours adjusted basis.
However, the ratio changes to 90% when you exclude people earning over $100,000 per year and 97% when you use a $70,000 threshold.
Rates of men and women in management and professional jobs appear to be similar. If the source of this is in the upper end of the income distribution, I'd speculate that within the management and professional categories, there's still a differential where there are fewer women in the highest income categories. Business ownership may also be a factor.
That's not quite the same thing as 77 cents for each dollar a man makes, but it's not necessarily something to be too dismissive of. One argument I've heard is that in order to get the biggest promotions, you really need to make a name for yourself in your 30s and 40s, and having children (and spending time with them) makes this more difficult.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:04AM
Yup, making a personal choice to place family ahead of career is not something that needs society to adjust for though. You makes your choices, you takes the consequences, you don't bitch.
The confidence deficit also plays a significant part no doubt. Women are significantly less likely to ask for a raise/promotion or to put their ideas forward unsolicited. It's a very, very complex matter and anyone trying to give you an exact number should be disbelieved before they even finish speaking and mocked until they pony up with solid, well-researched proof.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:04PM
...making a personal choice to place family ahead of career...
Not much of choice when men don't get paternity leave...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:18PM
S'a fair point. How bout some equality for the guys, yo?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 21 2015, @03:59PM
S'a fair point. How bout some equality for the guys, yo?
You agree with the Feminists on this one. [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 1) by jrial on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:54PM
Yes, that sometimes happens in discussions. Just because one disagrees with most of the propaganda doesn't mean they have to disagree with the sensible, rational arguments too.
I happen to disagree with most of the current feminist narrative. I don't think it's a problem if both genders aren't treated exactly the same in all possible situations. For me it's perfectly acceptable that group A gets some perks and some disadvantages compared to group B and the same holding true in the other direction. As long as on average, the perks and drawbacks cancel each other out. If a woman thinks I should be equally involved in the household (cooking, cleaning, groceries, ...), then I think it's not unreasonably for me to expect her to pull her weight too when it comes to maintaining the car, fixing the plumbing and electricity and what have you. But that would be a suboptimal solution; on average, women tend to be better at some tasks such as cooking, cleaning, or perhaps less patronising: interior decoration. And on average, men are better with plumbing, car mechanics (although that's quickly becoming a lost art) and other "manly" things. The solution is not demanding that each gender wastes their time on tasks they generally tend to be worse at to even out the load across all tasks. The solution is for each individual to focus on the tasks they're better suited for. If that means in my household I end up being the cook (I am quite good at it and enjoy doing it) and my wife the one changing the distribution belt, so be it. But since I am absolutely shit at cleaning, unless she's equally crap at it than I am, yes, I would appreciate it if she did in 1 hour what would take me 3 rather than giving me crap about me reinforcing gender roles.
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:30PM
I agree with egalitarians. Feminists, that depends on if you're talking ones like Christina Hoff Sommers or the blue-haired, shrieking millennials who wouldn't piss on a man if he were on fire.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:13AM
You didn't factor in risk. Every time someone runs at the mouth about how dangerous a cop's job is, someone else responds with a list of the most dangerous jobs. I've worked in some of those most dangerous jobs, throughout my life. I would counter the SJW's claims that I deserved more pay for driving a log truck out into the woods, than any male or female who sits in an air conditioned office with a coffee pot and vending machines only steps away from their desks.
While few women are found in those dangerous occupations, the women who are in those occupations seem to get the same pay as the men. Which supports one claim that Adams makes - when women are willing to take the same risks as men, they get equal pay.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 21 2015, @11:12AM
Yup, see my response to Non Sequor above. I didn't take hardly any actual relevant variables into account, the same as feminists don't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.