4 ms·

> and fairly damning. Are they? From what I have seen the consensus is: An overall small 3-6% wage gap after accounting for basic life choices. Women under

> and fairly damning. Are they? From what I have seen the consensus is: An overall small 3-6% wage gap after accounting for basic life choices. Women under 30 + childless women significantly out-earning women with children + older women. Women under 30 + childless women have almost no wage gap and in many industries are out-earning their male peers. Life is rough for the bottom 50% of earners - male and female. What exactly do you think the stats show? > and the jobs that are heavily weighted towards women do not pay nearly as much. Why are you talking about women like they are objects without agency? My friends in game design work harder than I do and earn half what I earn. They made a trade-off and work in a more interesting and rewarding job that pays less. They certainly aren't oppressed and discriminated against. Now this isn't really true at the bottom end of the scale. But it is for the middle class and up.

throwaway91111 10y ago
I suppose you can hand-wave the aggregate results away if you're comfortable with that 3-6% gap. But your argument basically amounts to "what matters to you doesn't matter to me, so I consider it insignificant". I do consider 3-6% damning. If you only compare women to other women, of course you won't see a wage gap; you can blame it all on the individual. It's this willingness to value personal views of the world to minimize the facts that allows the gap to continue. Do you really think you can reason about systemic discrimination by looking at the individual? That's as ineffable as wondering why some people win the lotto; individuals are dominated by noise, and you only see the disparity in aggregate. Why bother commenting if you don't care about the wage gap?
- sheepmullet 10y ago
  > I do consider 3-6% damning. You do realise the gap is just the "unexplained by standard corrections" and not "% due to sexism" right? > Why bother commenting if you don't care about the wage gap? I care that you are using misleading statistics to push an agenda.
  - throwaway91111 10y ago
    The shitty part is the gap, not the explanation. Are you seriously defending a wage gap because you're skeptical about why it exists? That's why it exists. At no point did I state I thought the wage gap is entirely due to sexism. although, I do argue it is evident sexism; I believe that still requires argument on your part that it's clearly not.

throwaway91111 10y ago

I suppose you can hand-wave the aggregate results away if you're comfortable with that 3-6% gap. But your argument basically amounts to "what matters to you doesn't matter to me, so I consider it insignificant". I do consider 3-6% damning. If you only compare women to other women, of course you won't see a wage gap; you can blame it all on the individual. It's this willingness to value personal views of the world to minimize the facts that allows the gap to continue. Do you really think you can reason about systemic discrimination by looking at the individual? That's as ineffable as wondering why some people win the lotto; individuals are dominated by noise, and you only see the disparity in aggregate. Why bother commenting if you don't care about the wage gap?

sheepmullet 10y ago
> I do consider 3-6% damning. You do realise the gap is just the "unexplained by standard corrections" and not "% due to sexism" right? > Why bother commenting if you don't care about the wage gap? I care that you are using misleading statistics to push an agenda.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  The shitty part is the gap, not the explanation. Are you seriously defending a wage gap because you're skeptical about why it exists? That's why it exists. At no point did I state I thought the wage gap is entirely due to sexism. although, I do argue it is evident sexism; I believe that still requires argument on your part that it's clearly not.