3 ms·

> You seem to have debunked your own comment. Are you saying my comment is debunked because 2.4% is still a gender gap? If so, this is why I say it would be go

by tajen 10y ago

> You seem to have debunked your own comment. Are you saying my comment is debunked because 2.4% is still a gender gap? If so, this is why I say it would be good for journalists to interview scientists: They'd help understanding the difficulty of depicting reality with statistics (see next paragraph). The article just shows raw, non-scientific statistics, spun with an inaccurate interpretation, instead of showing integrity by properly reporting scientific studies. 2.4% average means the gender gap is wider in some sectors, but also negative in other sectors. A 24% pay gap would make it likely that gender gap is wide in all sectors. This is entirely another story: The first one shows general despise on women; The second one shows a society where men reach good progress in integrating women despite some sectors that remain misogynist (and racist, probably). The title tries to spin the first one: Does it show integrity? The article could, for example, list sectors where women are still badly considered, and show that there is progress in others. For example, if you only take the 150 large US cities, women's pay is usually 8% larger than men[2]. Surprising, isn't it? That hints that agricultural jobs or smaller cities are more misogynist, and other sectors are the opposite (favorable to women) – and that's when we start depicting a situation we can act upon. I've only shown 2 facts in this comment; Hundreds could be said about the single, short article I've brought to you. Although we could debate all day long, I'd rather expect journalists to show both sides of the story. That was supposed to be their job, wasn't it? Of course it's easier to title an article "Women are paid less", because it doesn't depict the possible ways of taking action, but rather spreads outrage of both camps (feminists and equalitarians). Ignorance and outrage, of course, creates views and votes. [2] http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Look, it's fairly obvious that you are in fact the one with a partisan take on this, that's torturing the data until it tells you what you want. Any accusations you're lobbing at the media are clearly projection. e.g. your link, which you characterise as "women's pay is usually 8% larger than men" and claim is surprising, is much more limited in your source: "Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities." And they go on to explain it very succintly, there's 3 female graduates for every 2 male graduates in these areas in that demographic. People with degrees make more money than people without. Surprising? No. (And while I haven't run the numbers, this appears to show that the male graduates are still being paid more than their female peers, there's just less of them!) So you've railed against the 76% percent figure and said the 2.4% is better (but still not perfect) because it doesn't control for every variable, but you're happy to use any old figure to back up your own case. This is very weak sauce.
- tajen 10y ago
  > you are in fact the one that's torturing the data until it tells you what you want. If a journalist issues a press article claiming "Women earn less than men", he/she's the one who extracted a story out of the statistics, and they ought to be very well justified to say that, because such titles create outrage against men. And I'm just cross-checking the title against the own source of the article and it already shows huge weaknesses. I reckon that -24% (raw average), -2.4% (on equal jobs), +8% (for big cities) or +15% (in NYC/Atlanta) are figures that are up for discussion, but that is exactly my point: All of this analysis should be in the journalist's investigation (and eventually cross-checked by a scientific) before warranting the claim that women are underpaid. > there's 3 female graduates for every 2 male graduates in these areas in that demographic That is another concerning problem that isn't taken very seriously either: Since we've helped help women reach males' wage levels, shouldn't we help men reach females' education levels? Shouldn't that make the headlines too?
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    You've just repeated your false fact "+8% (for big cities)" after I corrected it, with a quote from the source, in the very comment you replied to. You provided the link in the first place and yet you're happy to misquote it twice in the face of correction. What hope for any kind of conversation is there now? People might take your cause more seriously if you even put slightly more effort into your lies, or alternatively told the truth.
    - tajen 10y ago
      > You've just repeated your false fact "+8% (for big cities)" after I corrected it You "corrected it" by showing the criteria that were used to obtain samples with the same profiles. Yours wasn't a correction or a proof of falsehood: The scientist performed the required steps to be able to determine the wage gap with "all other variables being neutralized". The false fact is "Women are paid 76% of men's pay for the same work". I'm unable to find words to explain you what "for the same work" means, and how such titles are consequently a lie. Note the article doesn't actually say it, but every reader does understand it: It shows how wrongful the writer's intent is. Do you want to know why I'm pointing this out? Based on 10 years of career in programming and reading hundreds of statistics on those topics, I've witnessed that women are promoted faster than men (3 years vs 7 years), assuming the same number of hours worked, the same results, the same IQ, the same training – but of course such a testimony from a man is not going to be accepted by people like you, so I have to rely on public sources to raise what is false about existing press articles. It is, however, very frustrating that: - Studies on wage gap are not even close to scientific accuracy (They never properly compensate for same profiles - At least if we talk about people who have suspended their career to carry a baby, let's compare it to people who have done a gap year abroad), - A lot of men had to leave their expectations for promotions, in order to make room for women, and when we put the proof of this "woman effect" in the eyes of people, we're merely acknowledged with a recognition of the fact like "Ok, yes, I reckon, we have to sacrifice a generation of men to give women the manager's jobs", and we don't even get a tiny "thanks" or a pat on the back. - And yet the figure that depicts men as the most awful kind of persons always make the headlines. Try finding a worse title for the article, if you don't believe me. Once again, I'm not against positive action for women, as long as we also help men for their problems too (men commit suicide 3x as often as women, are homeless 2x as often, are bad students 50% more often than women, etc). Most help networks are organized in sexist ways (budgets and preference being given to women, even for suicide prevention).

by tajen 10y ago

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

Look, it's fairly obvious that you are in fact the one with a partisan take on this, that's torturing the data until it tells you what you want. Any accusations you're lobbing at the media are clearly projection. e.g. your link, which you characterise as "women's pay is usually 8% larger than men" and claim is surprising, is much more limited in your source: "Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities." And they go on to explain it very succintly, there's 3 female graduates for every 2 male graduates in these areas in that demographic. People with degrees make more money than people without. Surprising? No. (And while I haven't run the numbers, this appears to show that the male graduates are still being paid more than their female peers, there's just less of them!) So you've railed against the 76% percent figure and said the 2.4% is better (but still not perfect) because it doesn't control for every variable, but you're happy to use any old figure to back up your own case. This is very weak sauce.

tajen 10y ago
> you are in fact the one that's torturing the data until it tells you what you want. If a journalist issues a press article claiming "Women earn less than men", he/she's the one who extracted a story out of the statistics, and they ought to be very well justified to say that, because such titles create outrage against men. And I'm just cross-checking the title against the own source of the article and it already shows huge weaknesses. I reckon that -24% (raw average), -2.4% (on equal jobs), +8% (for big cities) or +15% (in NYC/Atlanta) are figures that are up for discussion, but that is exactly my point: All of this analysis should be in the journalist's investigation (and eventually cross-checked by a scientific) before warranting the claim that women are underpaid. > there's 3 female graduates for every 2 male graduates in these areas in that demographic That is another concerning problem that isn't taken very seriously either: Since we've helped help women reach males' wage levels, shouldn't we help men reach females' education levels? Shouldn't that make the headlines too?
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  You've just repeated your false fact "+8% (for big cities)" after I corrected it, with a quote from the source, in the very comment you replied to. You provided the link in the first place and yet you're happy to misquote it twice in the face of correction. What hope for any kind of conversation is there now? People might take your cause more seriously if you even put slightly more effort into your lies, or alternatively told the truth.
  - tajen 10y ago
    > You've just repeated your false fact "+8% (for big cities)" after I corrected it You "corrected it" by showing the criteria that were used to obtain samples with the same profiles. Yours wasn't a correction or a proof of falsehood: The scientist performed the required steps to be able to determine the wage gap with "all other variables being neutralized". The false fact is "Women are paid 76% of men's pay for the same work". I'm unable to find words to explain you what "for the same work" means, and how such titles are consequently a lie. Note the article doesn't actually say it, but every reader does understand it: It shows how wrongful the writer's intent is. Do you want to know why I'm pointing this out? Based on 10 years of career in programming and reading hundreds of statistics on those topics, I've witnessed that women are promoted faster than men (3 years vs 7 years), assuming the same number of hours worked, the same results, the same IQ, the same training – but of course such a testimony from a man is not going to be accepted by people like you, so I have to rely on public sources to raise what is false about existing press articles. It is, however, very frustrating that: - Studies on wage gap are not even close to scientific accuracy (They never properly compensate for same profiles - At least if we talk about people who have suspended their career to carry a baby, let's compare it to people who have done a gap year abroad), - A lot of men had to leave their expectations for promotions, in order to make room for women, and when we put the proof of this "woman effect" in the eyes of people, we're merely acknowledged with a recognition of the fact like "Ok, yes, I reckon, we have to sacrifice a generation of men to give women the manager's jobs", and we don't even get a tiny "thanks" or a pat on the back. - And yet the figure that depicts men as the most awful kind of persons always make the headlines. Try finding a worse title for the article, if you don't believe me. Once again, I'm not against positive action for women, as long as we also help men for their problems too (men commit suicide 3x as often as women, are homeless 2x as often, are bad students 50% more often than women, etc). Most help networks are organized in sexist ways (budgets and preference being given to women, even for suicide prevention).