• polonius-rex@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The remaining gap is smaller than the margin of error, once you account for every known factor.

    no, it isn’t

    it’d be absurdly impractical otherwise (no one is going to be examining the individual daily acts of all these people at their jobs),

    you know, other than like researchers

    You have cause and effect backwards. The fields pay more first, then men are shown to gravitate more toward them

    genuinely very funny that you just wrote over 200 words to restate your original very bad arguments

    this is circular af

    This is a loaded question. Men aren’t any more “socially in a position” to do so than women.

    sorry i made the critical error of “assuming you had an actual point to make”

    unless you’re actually out here trying to make a case that FEEEEMAALEESS are just genetically predisposed to being scared of making money

    Okay, really now, let’s not pretend there are these throngs of women clamoring to be ‘let in’ to the roofing industry

    you’re right the second x chromosome makes them completely incapable of laying tiles upon other tiles

    genuinely what point do you think you’re making?

    are you actually unironically trying to claim that there aren’t incredibly real social barriers to entry for women trying to get into the construction industry, for example?

    Left to make a free choice, men are simply more likely to risk their safety and lives for a bigger paycheck, than women are

    wow super weird that the gender class that isn’t expected to care for the next generation for 15-18 years is treated as more sacrificial i wonder how that could have happened i guess science will never know

    In fact, the data has shown that the more egalitarian a society is re sex equality, the more pronounced those differences become

    i don’t really have anything to say here other than the fact that this just straight up isn’t true

    a lot easier to argue for a point when you’re willing to just make shit up, i guess

    no one will choose it over the safer option, obviously.

    just casually ignoring the side of the risk where you die and make no money, i guess

    i actually love that you think everybody can succeed in what is almost by definition the zero-sum game of venture capitalism it’s very sweet

    This is the ‘working with things’ vs. ‘working with people’ general preference difference between men and women, in action.

    wow i can’t wait to see the evidence that you provide to prove this is genetic and not social predisposition it will turn the field on its head

    oh what’s that? you don’t have that evidence

    WEIRD

    Point 17 doesn’t say men are more ABLE, it says they’re more WILLING.

    oh weird please could you link the study that sufficiently justifies men are more willing rather than more able to relocate?

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      no, it isn’t

      “When the BLS reports that women working full-time in 2020 earned 82.3% of what men earned working full-time, that is very much different from saying that women earned 82.3% of what men earned for doing exactly the same work while working the exact same number of hours in the same occupation, with exactly the same educational background and exactly the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and with exactly the same marital and family (e.g., number of children) status…once we start controlling individually for the many relevant factors that affect earnings, e.g., hours worked, age, marital status, and having children, most of the raw earnings differential disappears.”

      Done with your ignorant “nuh uh” garbage. Go ahead and cling to your misogyny boogeyman, you’re clearly more interested in maintaining your own assumptions and biases, than the truth. This nonsense is literally equivalent to the creationist “god of the gaps” fallacious argument, where any empty spot in the evolutionary record is assumed by the creationist to be ‘God did it, right there’. Then, whenever we find a transitional fossil Z between X and Y, suddenly God’s role is no longer between X and Y, but between X and Z, and Z and Y, ad infinitum.

      The bottom line is that there is literally zero evidence that any statistically-significant portion of the gap between the sexes’ average early earnings IS caused by sexism. This is just something people like you assume, because you’re too simple-minded to consider that a difference in outcome between two demographics could be caused by anything but bigotry toward one of them. And it’s another level of simple-mindedness to continue to cling to that assumption even after you’ve been made aware of well over a dozen factors that account for various chunks of the gap, making it clear that ‘turns out there can in fact be other reasons for this disparity to exist’. The misogyny ‘God’ in that ever-shrinking gap–the straw you cling to constantly shortening. Ideologue narrative-clinging is pitiable.

      I’m not going to entertain your “prove it’s not” nonsense, that’s not how it works. Enjoy your delusional boogeyman hunt, I guess.

      P.S. Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality? Like Saudi Arabia, where women only recently became legally allowed to drive, and Egypt, which has the second highest rate of sexual harassment on Earth. Whoops, another massive wrench in your delusional assumption, how about that?

      • polonius-rex@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Done with your ignorant “nuh uh” garbage

        ah yes because you’re backing up everything you say with sources, and not just spouting shit

        this is the first time you’ve tried to cite something to back yourself up, and the thing you chose to cite agrees with me.

        most of the raw earnings differential”: you know that “most” doesn’t mean “all”, right?

        so what we have here is you saying something that’s wrong, me telling you it’s wrong, you proving to both of us that it’s wrong, and then you complaining that i’m telling you it’s wrong

        I’m not going to entertain your “prove it’s not” nonsense, that’s not how it works

        either you’re utterly inept enough to get burden of proof completely ass-backwards, or you’re deliberately misinterpreting it here because you’re arguing in bad faith

        obviously i wouldn’t accuse you of being utterly inept because it would be rude so i would ask that you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the high standards set by the rest of your “wage gap is a myth” folks

        to clarify: you’re making the claim that women are genetically predisposed to behave in a certain way, so it’s you who gets to back that up

        Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality?

        i’m pretty sure i know the exact study you’re citing (well not citing, vaguely gesturing towards) which is why i’m so confident that it’s nonsense

        if it’s the one i’m thinking of, they completely misuse a statistical indicator so badly that they literally invert the trend in their data

         

        i’ll make this really simple for you. you need to make a convincing case that either:

        • our social system doesn’t typically expect the bulk of childcare to fall on women
        • the bulk of childcare falling on one parent over the other doesn’t impact the amount of flexibility that parent has in their schedule

        otherwise, we’ve just demonstrated systemic sexism present in the wage gap

        (i know you won’t reply to this because you know that you can’t make that convincing case; this is more for the benefit of future viewers)