3 ms·

> 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

by 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).
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    The 8% figure was not "all other variables being neutralized" as I pointed out in my first comment on the matter. It didn't take into account the number of graduates. And even if it did, it would still only apply to the specific demographic that it was based on. If you continue to quote it as "women in big cities earn more" then you're just wrong. Factually incorrect. You have no basis on which to make that statement. Now, why should I believe any other unsourced statement in your posts? How does throwing your credibility away help advance your case?

by tajen 10y ago

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).
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  The 8% figure was not "all other variables being neutralized" as I pointed out in my first comment on the matter. It didn't take into account the number of graduates. And even if it did, it would still only apply to the specific demographic that it was based on. If you continue to quote it as "women in big cities earn more" then you're just wrong. Factually incorrect. You have no basis on which to make that statement. Now, why should I believe any other unsourced statement in your posts? How does throwing your credibility away help advance your case?