but for a business that has a goal of hiring people that will provide the most value it's kind of hard to ignore this factor.
Which is why you've seen worker's movements fighting against this sort of thing, by implementing paid maternity leave and campaigning for mandatory shared parental leave.
That bosses want control over our life situations is inherent to the relationship between employer and employee. It's why they are our enemies. The only thing to do is fight back.
Or you start your own business, and hire the women at a better pay with good childcare services and make it a really nice place to work and retire from. When the idea catches on, the welfare state takes on the idea through populist means such as running it as a Democratic plank.
Frankly, a lot of this has to do with another problem; over work and unpaid overtime are the norm. Women take off more to raise a family, and lose out on work "experience" and then that is not compensated towards and explains a lot of the inequality within the system.
Frankly, I think the movement in politics is towards reunionization of the workforce as well as a rise in social entrepreneurialism in tandem would work far better in the fight. You create the companies that have good working relationships with unions, you out compete the other "evil" companies and then win the game of politics as people gradually like the idea.
It's easier said than done, but it's something that with 401c3's and other organizations has worked across the nations.
As an aside, I'd recommend reading Frederick Taylor's The Principals of Scientific Management. It's very classical liberal, but it shows some of the tenets to the good side of Fordism. Then taking into construct some of Tom Friedman's Lexus and the Olive Tree. Which is better seen as a metaphor for globalization than a hard academic look at it. However, ideally those two tied together would be a "benevolent neo liberalism" that when combined with specific aspects of social democracy do work out quite well such your own home country.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Maybe it's just because we're so passive aggressive here... but even equals wouldnt typically tell each other to "knock it off" unless something really nasty was said... Most people that I know just roll with the punches.
Well, from the women I've talked to, the vast majority of even remotely gendered jokes made by a man to a woman qualify as "really nasty". But I'd wager at least a third of the male population would disagree with that assessment, probably more. And when women point out that they consider said gendered jokes to be highly insulting, guess who's opinion ends up winning.
I also wonder how much of these "microaggressions" are real or just imagined to be real. Do women not go to these MTG events because they have been harassed at them before or because they think they will be? Does 1 guy harassing a woman at an event ruin it for everyone else?
I cannot list exact examples, as one of the rules of this closed women's group is that things stay in the group, so as to ensure it is a safe space to talk about this stuff without fear of male judgment. But it is real. Men at events make all sorts of assumptions about women in attendance - they assume she has to "prove" herself as a "real" gamer, they assume she's only here because her boyfriend is, they assume she's only there for male attention so its ok to hit on her non-stop, and so on. This is on top of the very basic "You're a GIRL!" treatment, which is obviously irritating as all holy ****.
That being said - I must note that using terms like "imagined" is not going to go over well with many people. Telling a person that they are "imagining" whatever upset them is basically saying that they don't have a right to feel what they feel, because they're reacting to something that, in your eyes, is not real. But the fact is, the behavior in question caused a very REAL and negative reaction in one of your fellow human beings, and that alone should be reason enough to stop and question the necessity of it.
Indeed - but, I don't think its the case that "No one claimed that we live in a perfect meritocracy, and I don't think anyone is trying to pretend there's nothing happening in terms of discrimination either." Plenty of people (mostly well-off men) do in fact claim just this. There are others, like certain elements of the MRA movement, who claim it is actually women who are favored in everything.
I was mostly talking about "no one in this thread", not no one ever in general. People say all kinds of things, but it's fruitless to argue against people that are not here to defend their viewpoints.
This might also be due to the places where we were grown up. Most people in Finland seem to acknowledge it. Interestingly, IIRC, one of the groups that most claims there is no discrimination against women, are academic women. Despite all the evidence to the contrary - there's actually more discrimination in the academic world than in many places elsewhere. (I can try to dig up the study for this if someone is interested enough to read it.)
I'm not saying it's anything; I'm just saying men certainly aren't oppressed by any standard worth looking at.
The duration of prison sentences for same crimes, forced military service? Likelihood of being falsely convicted for rape, and being more easily convicted for child abuse in cases where evidence is not sufficient to show certainty. Also, custody, and the right to see their own children after divorce.
I think this is a topic for another thread, though. The topic of the thread implies it's about the wage cap in specific, and not general "where X is privileged over Y" conversation.
Women basically will always have a more stressful work environment so long as a huge chunk of men subconsciously believe they shouldn't be there.
I'm going to reiterate what I said earlier in this thread: This is not some patriarchy thing. Women are just as likely to suffer from this cognitive bias.
A social power differential means that if Empowered Person A makes fun of not-Empowered Person B, Person B is not in much of a position to tell Person A to stop if he doesn't think its that funny for some reason. If Person B does say something along the lines of "dude that isn't funny, knock it off", (s)he can expect to be told to "lighten up", "Get a sense of humor", and generally be told that their feelings don't matter.
Ultimately, men think that feelings don't matter, and expect each other to get over them. Part of this is just men extending the same standards to women. There is a very large gap between the genders on how important feelings are considered.
Besides, men do this to each other all the time. All the time. Words "Grow a pair", "toughen up", and "don't be such a sissy" are being uttered. One's boundaries will not be respected. Unless the two happen to be friends. I've seen these things elevate to fistfights and hospital trips.
And it's not like women don't play their own social games of elevating their status amongst each other. They just play by different rules. Rather than deliberately screwing each other over and dropping your horrible certainly-crashing project on someone else's shoulders and then openly laughing at them, women form groups and then exclude each other, spread rumours about each other, shame each other and do things much more indirectly.
Arguably, women do this more. Studies have shown that a group of women working together to solve a problem cooperate less than a group of men when faced with the same problem. See: Sex Differences in Cooperation: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Dilemmas. Nevertheless, women prefer to work in groups and men prefer to work alone, except if there's a advantage to working in groups. (In which case both genders are as willing to cooperate.)
----------
It should also be noted that women display less efficiency in competitive environments. See: Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences. Even if the results are same between the two genders in a noncompetitive environment, as the competition is increased, the performance of men tends to increase. (This is suggested as one of the reasons why girls in single-sex schools display higher interest in mathematics and sciences.) This forms a dilemma, as it is beneficial for a male-dominated worplace or business to create a competitive environment - An environment where men do outperform women, as this maximizes overall efficiency.
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Ultimately, men think that feelings don't matter, and expect each other to get over them.
I have heard that there is psychological research to back the idea that this "feelings don't matter" attitude has actually been incredibly damaging to men. Men have a hard time managing their emotions, as they believe emotions need to be ignored or reppressed. Men also have a harder time developing deep and intimate relationships, particularly with other men, since that would involve acknowledging the importance of their own emotions.
On the other hand, the idea that emotions are not the end-all be-all is equally valid. We shouldn't simply be slaves to our emotional impulses. What our emotions tell us in the short terms isn't always in our best interest in the long term. But acting like our emotions aren't there is not the answer. Emotions will find ways to sneak out if you attempt to do this. A psychologically healthy person will be able to restrain their emotions if a situation demands it, but also take the time later to express them fully, so as to prevent an uncontrollable emotional buildup.
And therein lies the problem. Each gender is being socialized to an unhealthy extreme. However women end up paying the price because men get to write the rules of what's acceptable and not, particularly in the context of the workplace. Because men are the socially empowered party, their inappropriate behavior will end up being handwaved more often (hence "boys will be boys"), whereas that of a woman will not be - even if they are both equally in the wrong.
I have no doubt that we would have a similar problem if the roles of men and women were reversed. This isn't about one gender, this is about a power differential existing between two groups that each prefer to focus on equally important aspects of human behavior. The issue is that emotional expression is being held subordinate to emotional suppression. It is being done to such an extreme that we are no longer encouraged to merely suppress emotions, but instead repress them entirely.
And it's not like women don't play their own social games of elevating their status amongst each other. They just play by different rules.
You're absolutely right. But again, who is the empowered party? Men are socially empowered, ergo men write the rules, so the women who were taught to play by a different set of rules get left out in the cold. But its ****ty behavior in both cases. Instead of letting one gender write the rules for status posturing, why can't we agree that its ALL ****ty behavior and call out ALL of it when it happens? Because we don't.
I don't believe women are "better then" men in any way. But when we teach two different ways of doing things to two different groups of people, then let only one of them decide how to do things...should it shock you that the other group under-performs? Of course not. Since both ways are equally valid, and bring valuable stuff to the table, we should be acting accordingly, but we aren't.
As far as the whole competition thing goes, if I'm not mistaken, your study states that women tend to perform worse when competing - but only when competing *against men*. This tends to support the idea that women aren't inherently worse at competition, but rather, there is something about being alongside men that damages their abilities. There are lots of perfectly plausible reasons for this - for example, it could be that women feel extra pressure to "represent" other women, to "prove" they're good enough to work alongside men.
In the case of MtG in particular, a competitive environment often leads to competitors trying to push each other down on the way to the top, by any means necessary. This can and does include leveraging social power differentials - if you can make your female opponent feel extra uncomfortable and thus play worse by making an offensive gendered joke, so be it. If making yourself look better then another player means using logic like "she's a woman, she can't possibly be better then a guy, ergo I am better!", then yeah, people do that too.
The bottom line is there are LOTS of environmental pressures that can affect the statistical average performance of a large group. You can add pressures and cause a larger chunk of the bell curve to fail. You can take off pressures and cause a wider part of the bell curve to succeed. And the pressures we apply are not equal when viewed along the lines of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
I have heard that there is psychological research to back the idea that this "feelings don't matter" attitude has actually been incredibly damaging to men.
Likely, but also irrelevant in regard to the pay gap difference.
However women end up paying the price because men get to write the rules of what's acceptable and not, particularly in the context of the workplace. Because men are the socially empowered party, their inappropriate behavior will end up being handwaved more often (hence "boys will be boys"), whereas that of a woman will not be - even if they are both equally in the wrong.
I don't think this is as much a "men make rules" issue. Hiding one's emotions is almost certainly beneficial in the workplace. The Boss makes the rules, and he doesn't give a damn about how you feel. He only gives a damn about how much work you get done. If he could replace you with a feeling-less robot that could do the same job, he would.
You can argue over the profit-maximizing capitalist marketplace model is a male construct, where the only function is to increase the amount of competition that takes place, and to elevate one's social status above others. But then again...
Instead of letting one gender write the rules for status posturing, why can't we agree that its ALL ****ty behavior and call out ALL of it when it happens? Because we don't.
Because statistically women are attracted to social status, and therefore the men who increase their social status through various methods increase their chance to reproduce, pass their genes onwards, and create even more competitive workplace in the future. Hell, I can cite studies that show that women are more attracted to men that act like dicks, because being able to do so without repercussions is an implication of alpha male status.
Men will stop fighting over who's the alpha male of the group once women stop being attracted to the alpha male. (Or more precisely, when there are no benefits for being the alpha male.)
... And ultimately I don't see that happening, and I can't see the capitalism going away. It's too profitable to the people in power.
As far as the whole competition thing goes, if I'm not mistaken, your study states that women tend to perform worse when competing - but only when competing *against men*. This tends to support the idea that women aren't inherently worse at competition, but rather, there is something about being alongside men that damages their abilities. There are lots of perfectly plausible reasons for this - for example, it could be that women feel extra pressure to "represent" other women, to "prove" they're good enough to work alongside men.
The performance of women does not decrease; The performance of men increases in competitive environments. The performance of women simply does not increase. The study also tested it for single-sex competition. The gender cap persists, but is smaller than in mixed environments. There is also a control to see that the increase women have when competing against each other is due to competition, not absence of male participants.
Essentially, women do not increase their performance to outperform men, but do work harder to beat other women. Men, on the other hand, increase their performance in any kind of competition.
Alternative possibility is that the women assume themselves to be worse at the task than men, and do not see it worthwhile to increase their performance when competing against men. This can't make up the whole difference, though, as the gender cap persists even in single-sex tests.
These are also laboratory controlled tests, so I don't think the competitors are allowed to demean each other, (Or even talk to each other.) and a lot of environmental factors can be assessed.
----------
Ultimately, though. Data suggests complete apartheid for men and women, since men perform equally in either case, and women perform better in women-only groups than in mixed groups. I recommend no one tells this to the Fortune 500 companies.
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Men will stop fighting over who's the alpha male of the group once women stop being attracted to the alpha male.
Where are these women that go fawning over "alpha male" types? I certainly have never met any, and I have plenty of female friends. Where are these studies that suggest this? What methodology did they use? Also, I have to ask...if only "alpha male" types get sex, how the heck has our species managed to propagate for so long...? And what do you say of all the happily married men who clearly DON'T qualify as "alpha males"?
Also, even if what you say were remotely true, how does this in any way excuse posturing in the workplace?
Men will stop fighting over who's the alpha male of the group once women stop being attracted to the alpha male.
Where are these women that go fawning over "alpha male" types? I certainly have never met any, and I have plenty of female friends. Where are these studies that suggest this? What methodology did they use? Also, I have to ask...if only "alpha male" types get sex, how the heck has our species managed to propagate for so long...? And what do you say of all the happily married men who clearly DON'T qualify as "alpha males"?
Also, even if what you say were remotely true, how does this in any way excuse posturing in the workplace?
It's irrelevant to wage gap... as is most of what has been discussed in the last few posts. I dont know where the alpha male comments came from but I dont see how they are relevant at all.
Empower party? What kind of talking point bull**** is that? The empowered party has nothing to do with male versus female. It's rich versus poor. The rich want to make more money, they will do that however is most efficient. I doubt that anyone could come up with a different model that favors women but still makes the same or greater profits. If they could someone would have done it by now. Jim the factory worker isnt part of some "good ol' boys" club where the big wigs have his back...
If capitalism itself favors male work tendencies because men work better in competitive environments it seems to me that it's just going to be that way. Arguing over whether or not it's "ideal" for men to suppress their emotions is irrelevant because it's not going to change in the context of making wages fair. Arguing over whether or not we should change our economic model because it happens to favor competitive people which happens to favor the male gender is ridiculous.
Men will stop fighting over who's the alpha male of the group once women stop being attracted to the alpha male.
Where are these women that go fawning over "alpha male" types? I certainly have never met any, and I have plenty of female friends.
Not necessarily alpha male types. Alpha males. In modern society, this usually translates to people that are either rich or highly regarded in society, such as lawyers and doctors.
Also, I have to ask...if only "alpha male" types get sex, how the heck has our species managed to propagate for so long...?
I'm not saying only alpha males have sex. I'm saying they have more sex, and more importantly, more offspring.
Also alpha males in history have had a lot of sex. Something like 0.5 of the entire planet can be traced to Genghis Khan. I don't even want to make assumptions about how large part of Arab countries can be traced to some of their ancient kings who had 850 wives.
Also, even if what you say were remotely true, how does this in any way excuse posturing in the workplace?
Excuse? It doesn't. It doesn't need to. It does, however, explain it. Did you know Higher social class predicts unethical behaviour? - It doesn't make the unethical behaviour any more ethical, but it explains why it happens.
It's irrelevant to wage gap... as is most of what has been discussed in the last few posts. I dont know where the alpha male comments came from but I dont see how they are relevant at all.
If it can be showed that women are attracted to social status in males, this would correlate into evolutionary benefits for successful men, which would make men more competitive. This would, in turn, affect the workplace, and how difficult it is for women to enter it.
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
You're absolutely right. But again, who is the empowered party? Men are socially empowered, ergo men write the rules, so the women who were taught to play by a different set of rules get left out in the cold. But its ****ty behavior in both cases. Instead of letting one gender write the rules for status posturing, why can't we agree that its ALL ****ty behavior and call out ALL of it when it happens? Because we don't.
This is based on a flawed Marxist way of looking at society. In reality it's more like men police men, women police women, and sometimes they police each other. Leaders power came form their status and that was largely shaped by their relationship to women. Genghis Kahn once said he only had two people in the world he feared, his mother and his wife. Men usually (about 99.999%) of the time have no interest in shaping womens spheres of power.
It's more like society needed women and men to complete certain functions to survive and the ways that best accomplished this irregardless of how well they worked in terms of empowerment is how societies evolved.
Really, women being explicitly denied the right to vote was the best way to accomplish survival?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Women who owned a certain amount of land could vote actually long before women's suffrage, from what I understand voting was viewed in terms of one vote per household (wealthy household). Universal male suffrage occured due to men having to give their lives for society and understandably stating they had a claim in how it was run.
As feminist try to reframe conscription as a rich vs poor issue I could reframe women's suffrage the same way.
Ultimately it's just more of the same in your face agitator propaganda. Just like "feminism is just the belief that men and women are equal" crap earlier in this thread, which is as intellectually dishonest as "Marxism is just the belief that all people are equal."
Men usually (about 99.999%) of the time have no interest in shaping womens spheres of power.
......uhhhh....
I mean, um, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
No man would ever want to, say, interfere on something like contraception, or abortion, right? Or...the variety of other insane overflowing from that notion.
Those are government programs funded by ALL taxpayers.
AND how the hell are those MEN interferring in WOMENS spheres of power when statistically speaking men and women hold almost identical views on the subject?
Do pro-life women simply not exist?
You do understand women are 55% of voters and even the most bible thumpingist republican needs the support of conservative women. Or do conservative women also not exist?
Is anyone else curious where the 77% figure comes from? I mean, I'm not in charge of deciding salaries at my company but I'm pretty sure there isn't a little spreadsheet that says "if they're a woman, multiply their salary by .77". I mean, ostensibly pay scales ignore gender, right? So how is the number persisting?
I did a modicum of research and apparently 2/3 of the gap is explained by the professions women are in vs men, and experience. Generally women are in lower-paying jobs, and fewer women are in high-paying jobs. So, ok, that's not great, but it's a lot better than the idea I had previously, that some corporate jagoffs are intentionally paying women almost 3/4 of their male counterparts.
The remaining 1/3 gap (so around 7.5% of base salary) is constant even with equal qualifications, job type, etc. So that's still bad, but it's a 92.5 cents on the dollar instead of 77. I've got one theory about what might cause it (based on nothing whatsoever) - thinking about jobs in my own field (programming, like everyone else here and also their respective mothers) I suspect that women are more likely to take a job at a company that pays lower, but has more appeal in what they'll be doing. My job, for example, is fine and pays great, but it's not really something that's especially fulfilling. Because, traditionally, women aren't as expected to provide for their family or whatever, I think they're more likely to go with the job that's more fulfilling than the one that pays better. When I cruise around dating sites it seems like a lot more women are trying to find jobs that are fulfilling, whereas men are more interested in what makes more money. This is all 150% anecdotal but I suspect I'm not the only one that's noticed it.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not convinced that the statistic is caused by women getting screwed over by the man. I think it has a lot more to do with the sort of jobs that women choose to seek out. What that boils down to, for any women in the audience, is that I think you're able to earn as much as a man (or hopefully at least close) so long as you're looking at the same jobs. You're not getting the shaft purely because of your gender. I hope.
While you are digging you might want to do some fact checking, as just because something gets published does not mean it is accurate.
Burden of proof isn't on me. (Although I did do google searches with the name of the article + rebuttals.) Until proper rebuttals are provided, articles in scientific journals can be assumed to be true. This is pretty much a given in scientific community, because otherwise it would be impossible to provide citations without committing all the tests again yourself.
However given this was published in 2009 there is a worryingly low number of citations. Now why is that?
For a number of potential reasons. Not the least of which is that talking about the subject in academic community using your own name is a deliberate suicide of your career.
edit 2. I should also point out that the term alpha does come from a horribly out of date and very flawed study. Even people behind the original alpha wolf ideas now reject the concept, talking about breading pairs.
Breeding pairs. That's because in practice, the wolf packs are usually just a breeding pair and their offspring. The term is still valid, as the pack leader behaviour does exist when packs interact, and when solitary wolves with no family connections are put together. Besides, the etymological use of Alpha is correct. It's signifier of the highest rank.
And then we get to the part where the behaviour exists in, like thousands of animal species, and has been disgarded as only partially accurate only in case of wolves. Even then we can discard the idea of the pack having an absolute alpha, but we still fit the criteria for everyday usage of the word, because there is still strong hierarchical structure.
----------
Either way, I'm willing to admit that one of the studies I found was faulty. As far as I can tell, it still shows correlation in the amount of sex reported by income, and shows positive correlation in many other metrics between sexual life and wealth.
So, are you going to concede the part that women find men more attractive the more wealthy they are, which was the point I was trying to make, or start finding faults in the other experiments?
I did a modicum of research and apparently 2/3 of the gap is explained by the professions women are in vs men, and experience.
Horizontal vs Vertical segregation. See Myth 3. (Whether or not you agree with all, or even most that Catherine Hakim says in the document, it's a pretty good rundown of the issue.)
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Most firms offer both paternity and maternity leave, and do not punish an attorney for taking it.
You and many others are going to have a hard time proving this. If it could be proven, the said employer would be in major heat for doing it. I'm sure LL was referring to punishments that do not go noticed. Not literal corrective actions.
Breeding pairs. That's because in practice, the wolf packs are usually just a breeding pair and their offspring. The term is still valid, as the pack leader behaviour does exist when packs interact, and when solitary wolves with no family connections are put together. Besides, the etymological use of Alpha is correct. It's signifier of the highest rank.
And then we get to the part where the behaviour exists in, like thousands of animal species, and has been disgarded as only partially accurate only in case of wolves. Even then we can discard the idea of the pack having an absolute alpha, but we still fit the criteria for everyday usage of the word, because there is still strong hierarchical structure.
Don't know what to say to your random wall of citations. I can only HOPE that they are peer reviewed, and that the analysis is objective...however, many of them are tagged as "Evolution Psychology"-related. I have been told that said field is a load of BS by at least two PhDs who work in fields concerning the study of human behavior. Now, granted, I'm sure the Evo Psych people say the same things about other disciplines, but still.
As far as the "Alpha Male" structure in nature? It may or may not be present. It certainly is NOT present in humanity's closest living relative, the Bonobo. So whether or not that line of behavior is "natural" or a social construct we've invented is a toss-up at best, from everything I've heard.
Is anyone else curious where the 77% figure comes from? I mean, I'm not in charge of deciding salaries at my company but I'm pretty sure there isn't a little spreadsheet that says "if they're a woman, multiply their salary by .77". I mean, ostensibly pay scales ignore gender, right? So how is the number persisting?
I did a modicum of research and apparently 2/3 of the gap is explained by the professions women are in vs men, and experience. Generally women are in lower-paying jobs, and fewer women are in high-paying jobs. So, ok, that's not great, but it's a lot better than the idea I had previously, that some corporate jagoffs are intentionally paying women almost 3/4 of their male counterparts.
The remaining 1/3 gap (so around 7.5% of base salary) is constant even with equal qualifications, job type, etc. So that's still bad, but it's a 92.5 cents on the dollar instead of 77. I've got one theory about what might cause it (based on nothing whatsoever) - thinking about jobs in my own field (programming, like everyone else here and also their respective mothers) I suspect that women are more likely to take a job at a company that pays lower, but has more appeal in what they'll be doing. My job, for example, is fine and pays great, but it's not really something that's especially fulfilling. Because, traditionally, women aren't as expected to provide for their family or whatever, I think they're more likely to go with the job that's more fulfilling than the one that pays better. When I cruise around dating sites it seems like a lot more women are trying to find jobs that are fulfilling, whereas men are more interested in what makes more money. This is all 150% anecdotal but I suspect I'm not the only one that's noticed it.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not convinced that the statistic is caused by women getting screwed over by the man. I think it has a lot more to do with the sort of jobs that women choose to seek out. What that boils down to, for any women in the audience, is that I think you're able to earn as much as a man (or hopefully at least close) so long as you're looking at the same jobs. You're not getting the shaft purely because of your gender. I hope.
I didn't touch on the ok cupid graph but without a lot of other data that graph isn't useful for any real scientific findings. There is some interesting data there but it is kind of meaningless as is.
However I think you are missing the point of the 7.5%, that is a completely unaccounted for figure. Now going from 33% to 7.5% would be accounted for in women taking either more fluffing, flexible or even lower risk jobs (though not all high risk jobs are high paying). The 7.5% is accounting for things like that and is saying for doing the same job women will be paid 7.5% less. This is without reading this report so I don't really know if its figures are sound or if we have other conflicting reports.
Now you can point to a lot of different reason behind this like men being rewarded for negotiating and women being discouraged from it. That and the 33% figure shouldn't be ignored either, high paying places like stock trading look like the would benefit from a less aggressive mind set and that would let more women in.
joande that is a colourful interpretation of women's suffrage if ever I heard one. Assuming we are limiting our selves to the US women's right to vote before universal suffrage change from state to state it was not a binary switch over but the idea women would gain the right to vote just if they owned enough land is wrong.
First of all idk where this 33% is coming from.
Secondly, I don't think the 7.5 is based on people with the exact same job (i.e. cashier at whole foods in Portland), I assume they're partitioning on some broader type (i.e. cashier). So my suggestion is that maybe a woman is more likely to take a job cashiering at whole foods in portland because she wants to live in Portland and she wants to support whole foods' commitment to the environment or whatever and she likes the people more, whereas a guy in the same position may be more willing to take the cashiering job in detroit at wal-mart even though he hates wal-mart and hates all the people there and hates the city, because it pays more (ok, that's probably not true but I'm not going to spend all day trying to think of a better example).
Obviously the 7.5% can't be COMPLETELY unaccounted for or it wouldn't exist. They just haven't figured out why it's there based on the partitions they've created.
As far as stock trading, I'm not so sure - I think the world as a whole might benefit, but would the actual brokerage? I don't know, honestly asking. I know jack about the stock market. But generally the model seems to be "screw the world as long as we're making money" and I'm not sure "less aggressive" is what helps that model.
Don't know what to say to your random wall of citations. I can only HOPE that they are peer reviewed, and that the analysis is objective...however, many of them are tagged as "Evolution Psychology"-related. I have been told that said field is a load of BS by at least two PhDs who work in fields concerning the study of human behavior. Now, granted, I'm sure the Evo Psych people say the same things about other disciplines, but still.
Evolutionary Psychology gets a lot of bad rap. Some of the issues are moral implications, and the fact that people tend to commit the naturalist fallacy. I.E: Because it's natural, it's morally just. Despite it being a commonly listed fallacy in any debate handbook, people still use it in combination with Evolutionary Psychology to justify things. Because for some reason people want to apply anything to their morals.
It happens especially much with right-wingers in Evolutionary Psychology. This has led into the field getting colored pretty far to the right. There are some solid examples of this, such as left-looking conclusions, such as Peter Kropotkin's study that found mutual aid to be an important factor affecting evolution, being more or less disregarded.
Evolutionary Psychology relatively good for judging the situation, and understanding the current situation. At the same time, it's more or less worthless for deciding what we should change going into the future. If you are willing to accept the naturalist fallacy as a legit argument though, **** starts to really hit the fan.
Additionally, Evolutionary Psychology is surprise surprise, pretty bad at saying anything about individual cases. It's very bad at telling why a specific individual thinks the way they do, but it's pretty solid at modelling the tendencies of a large set of data towards thinking one way or another.
Essentially, it's natural science applied to humanistic issues, and the two clash.
As far as the "Alpha Male" structure in nature? It may or may not be present. It certainly is NOT present in humanity's closest living relative, the Bonobo. So whether or not that line of behavior is "natural" or a social construct we've invented is a toss-up at best, from everything I've heard.
Bonobos have Alpha Females, though.
Whether it's natural or a social construct doesn't really matter. Either way, there is a preference towards a certain things (Wealth, status), and as such those characteristics are being rewarded. It's not really feasible to expect people to stop trying to get those characteristics through any means possible as long as this remains the case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Ladyluck-You like to talk about Binobos but what about Chimps. In the grand scheme of things they are just as close to us as Binobos and they have alpha males.
joande that is a colourful interpretation of women's suffrage if ever I heard one. Assuming we are limiting our selves to the US women's right to vote before universal suffrage change from state to state it was not a binary switch over but the idea women would gain the right to vote just if they owned enough land is wrong.
My point was that discrimination against men is often reframed that way.
Amadi no you can't just assume a journal is correct in the scientific community. Yes you do need to rely on other peoples work at times but you can't just accept things because they are in a journal, or do we believe autism and the NMR vaccine are linked because of one journal article? Citations are an important thing to see in older articles and this field of study clearly hasn't shut down either of these researchers so I am not sure what point you are trying to make there.
I didn't provide one journal article. I provided multiple, all coming to a similar conclusion, done in multiple areas around the world. Even the one which had a mistake in it still enforced the general idea I was trying to explain, despite differing in details.
Using citations as a signifier of credibility is an argumentum ad populum. I am not particularly popular with the conventions of this field, but in a lot of fields, for example Mathematics, it's also ridiculous. Because some papers get referred to by every paper in the same field as they are, even when there's no reason to.
Wolves don't have alphas in natural environments, alpha does not just signify highest rank there is a violent and domineering power struggle involved to be an alpha. So unless you are stretching the term alpha beyond any practical scientific use wolves can not be described to have alphas in normal environments.
No, it seems that you are the one who is confused about the word.
In all of my biology courses, which is quite a few credits worth of them, I have never seen a more strict definition for Alpha than the highest-ranking animal in the group. Klaus Immelmann's Dictionary of Ethology doesn't define Alpha, but explains it under Dominance. Let me quote:
Quote from Dictionary of Ethology »
In Ethology dominance refers to superior position in a rank order or social hierarchy. An individual to which another consistently gives way is said to be dominant in the relationship, the other being subordinate or subdominant. In a linear hierarchy each individual is dominant to those below it, and subordinate to those above it, with the exceptions of the alpha animal, who is subordinate to none, and the omega animal, who is dominant over none.
There is usually a power struggle involved. In a lot of animals it is violent, but doesn't have to be. In humans there is definitely a power struggle, but often a nonviolent one. The question asked of me was "Why can't we stop this status posturing in the workplace and call it out?". The power struggle is a way to increase one's status in the hierarchy, and my linked studies are aimed to show that raising one's status is desirable because it increases your fitness.
If women do select for "alphas" why aren't we all alphas now then? After all traits like that would have been passed down and selected for in humans. Why don't all of our leaders have harems?
Because it's impossible. Because everyone can't rank higher than everyone else. Bearing in mind that you were confused about the terminology, though, I'll try to answer this in a way that takes that into accord.
The answer is that women select for Alphas, as in people ranking highly on the social ladder, but the things that contribute towards your status change over time as technology develops.
In addition, it has been shown that people prefer just leaders, over domineering* ones. You can have leadership and alpha male status in a group without being overbearing or tyrannizing.
Evolution is also a slow process. It is not a case of only alphas have sex and therefore children in humans. They simply have more. This might be the difference between 2.2 to 1.9 children on average. So while the traits that contribute to having improved status in society, I.E: Self-confidence, are being selected for, it's not like the people with lack of confidence are instantly eliminated from the gene pool. Traits that are being selected for get more common slowly, especially in humans where the interval between generations is much longer than, say in fruit flies.
In addition, there was a claim that men don't find self-confidence desirable in women. Assuming that this is the case, same trait can bear negative correlation to fitness in one sex. So while it is being selected for in males, it can be selected against in females. Assuming that the genes that contribute to this trait in women and men are the same, the positive selection over multiple generations can be a zero-sum game.
I'm sorry, but it seems like you're trying to hammer away evidence contrary to your beliefs based on incorrect ideas on how biology, and specifically evolution, operates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
There's two issues there, though. Across-all-jobs pay gap ('why do jobs dominated by men pay better?') and within-job pay gap ('why do men get paid more than women for the same job?').
In the case that I was thinking of when I posted, a friend is a stay-at-home dad for exactly that reason - his partner's job was better paying, so he quit his to be the home parent.
Here is some food for thought- are these fields "dominated by men" because most males will do any job that makes them enough money to be comfortable with the least effort?
I look at my own family. I am going to school to be a mortician, my wife dropped out of college after 1 year because it was too difficult, and she was going to become a CPA. Why am I going to be a mortician? High pay, good benefits, stable employment in a growing industry with only a 2 year degree required. It has been seen as a male dominated field, until recently as more women are realizing that if they are willing to do the job they can get paid.
I look at my nieces- One was going to school for marketing and switched to creative writing (but will complain about the pay gap at any given opportunity). Guess what, you work at a veterinary office and major in the arts, you are not going to earn as much as the guy who went to school to BE a vet.
Another niece decided she wasn't going to go to college. She went and became a hairdresser, because she wants to make her own hour and not have to work so much. Her words, not mine.
Another was in school for law, and decided to switch to journalism. She works as a retail store manager for a major clothing store chain.
Your choices in life determine your value in the workforce. Men are in general more willing to sacrifice their own well being, their own free time and happiness because that is the societal expectation of us. Why do you think we die 6 years earlier, and why widowers don't survive nearly as long without their spouses?
When I worked retail, if overtime was offered to a group of cashiers the only ones willing to stay were the men. When I was 19 to 23 I worked for a major retailer and showed up to work 3 hours early every day. Some days I sat and ate breakfast and read a book until my shift started at 9am, but some weeks, especially beach days in the summer, this would mean 15 hours of overtime because someone else called out. Those same women who loved to complain when they didn't get hours would call out if they were asked to work 4 days in a row. These would be the same people complaining to corporate when my FEMALE store manager would give me a 5% raise every year and a 5% merit raise once a year when they got only a 3% annual raise. It is really easy to exceed expectations when the laziness of those around you sets the bar so low.
Society and the current "princess culture" has raised 2 generations of women that think being pampered and fawned over is the solution. I married my wife partially because she isn't afraid to work. Instead of being "Wow I am amazing and special just for having certain genitalia" we should focus more on how hard work sets you apart in this world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former DCI Tournament Organizer
What is the standard organisational structure of shadow organisation?(Gotta love 4Chan)
Current MTGO Player and paper reseller/speculator.
So I figured out how to get rid of "the wage gap", treat women as *****fully in family court, divorce, and custody as we treat men and make men the default for getting the kids. Then women have to work 80 hours a week just to live in a one bedroom efficiency apartment and pay the alimony/child support while men can worK part time. Then switch the child support systems gender based incentives around so judges are rewarded for maximizing child support by limiting womens time with their kids to an hour a week. This will also help break that glass ceiling too as women will have nothing else to do but work and move up the corporate latter. Of course such treatment might understandably drive some women to suicide and create some grumbling, we'll just have to always redirect the conversation to "deadbeat" moms when those issuues come up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
I dont see the current gender equality establishment getting behind this as it would fly in the face of the female tribalism that often defines these issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Or you start your own business, and hire the women at a better pay with good childcare services and make it a really nice place to work and retire from. When the idea catches on, the welfare state takes on the idea through populist means such as running it as a Democratic plank.
Frankly, a lot of this has to do with another problem; over work and unpaid overtime are the norm. Women take off more to raise a family, and lose out on work "experience" and then that is not compensated towards and explains a lot of the inequality within the system.
Frankly, I think the movement in politics is towards reunionization of the workforce as well as a rise in social entrepreneurialism in tandem would work far better in the fight. You create the companies that have good working relationships with unions, you out compete the other "evil" companies and then win the game of politics as people gradually like the idea.
It's easier said than done, but it's something that with 401c3's and other organizations has worked across the nations.
As an aside, I'd recommend reading Frederick Taylor's The Principals of Scientific Management. It's very classical liberal, but it shows some of the tenets to the good side of Fordism. Then taking into construct some of Tom Friedman's Lexus and the Olive Tree. Which is better seen as a metaphor for globalization than a hard academic look at it. However, ideally those two tied together would be a "benevolent neo liberalism" that when combined with specific aspects of social democracy do work out quite well such your own home country.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well, from the women I've talked to, the vast majority of even remotely gendered jokes made by a man to a woman qualify as "really nasty". But I'd wager at least a third of the male population would disagree with that assessment, probably more. And when women point out that they consider said gendered jokes to be highly insulting, guess who's opinion ends up winning.
I cannot list exact examples, as one of the rules of this closed women's group is that things stay in the group, so as to ensure it is a safe space to talk about this stuff without fear of male judgment. But it is real. Men at events make all sorts of assumptions about women in attendance - they assume she has to "prove" herself as a "real" gamer, they assume she's only here because her boyfriend is, they assume she's only there for male attention so its ok to hit on her non-stop, and so on. This is on top of the very basic "You're a GIRL!" treatment, which is obviously irritating as all holy ****.
That being said - I must note that using terms like "imagined" is not going to go over well with many people. Telling a person that they are "imagining" whatever upset them is basically saying that they don't have a right to feel what they feel, because they're reacting to something that, in your eyes, is not real. But the fact is, the behavior in question caused a very REAL and negative reaction in one of your fellow human beings, and that alone should be reason enough to stop and question the necessity of it.
I was mostly talking about "no one in this thread", not no one ever in general. People say all kinds of things, but it's fruitless to argue against people that are not here to defend their viewpoints.
This might also be due to the places where we were grown up. Most people in Finland seem to acknowledge it. Interestingly, IIRC, one of the groups that most claims there is no discrimination against women, are academic women. Despite all the evidence to the contrary - there's actually more discrimination in the academic world than in many places elsewhere. (I can try to dig up the study for this if someone is interested enough to read it.)
The duration of prison sentences for same crimes, forced military service? Likelihood of being falsely convicted for rape, and being more easily convicted for child abuse in cases where evidence is not sufficient to show certainty. Also, custody, and the right to see their own children after divorce.
I think this is a topic for another thread, though. The topic of the thread implies it's about the wage cap in specific, and not general "where X is privileged over Y" conversation.
I'm going to reiterate what I said earlier in this thread: This is not some patriarchy thing. Women are just as likely to suffer from this cognitive bias.
Ultimately, men think that feelings don't matter, and expect each other to get over them. Part of this is just men extending the same standards to women. There is a very large gap between the genders on how important feelings are considered.
Besides, men do this to each other all the time. All the time. Words "Grow a pair", "toughen up", and "don't be such a sissy" are being uttered. One's boundaries will not be respected. Unless the two happen to be friends. I've seen these things elevate to fistfights and hospital trips.
And it's not like women don't play their own social games of elevating their status amongst each other. They just play by different rules. Rather than deliberately screwing each other over and dropping your horrible certainly-crashing project on someone else's shoulders and then openly laughing at them, women form groups and then exclude each other, spread rumours about each other, shame each other and do things much more indirectly.
Arguably, women do this more. Studies have shown that a group of women working together to solve a problem cooperate less than a group of men when faced with the same problem. See: Sex Differences in Cooperation: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Dilemmas. Nevertheless, women prefer to work in groups and men prefer to work alone, except if there's a advantage to working in groups. (In which case both genders are as willing to cooperate.)
----------
It should also be noted that women display less efficiency in competitive environments. See: Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences. Even if the results are same between the two genders in a noncompetitive environment, as the competition is increased, the performance of men tends to increase. (This is suggested as one of the reasons why girls in single-sex schools display higher interest in mathematics and sciences.) This forms a dilemma, as it is beneficial for a male-dominated worplace or business to create a competitive environment - An environment where men do outperform women, as this maximizes overall efficiency.
It's problematic.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I have heard that there is psychological research to back the idea that this "feelings don't matter" attitude has actually been incredibly damaging to men. Men have a hard time managing their emotions, as they believe emotions need to be ignored or reppressed. Men also have a harder time developing deep and intimate relationships, particularly with other men, since that would involve acknowledging the importance of their own emotions.
On the other hand, the idea that emotions are not the end-all be-all is equally valid. We shouldn't simply be slaves to our emotional impulses. What our emotions tell us in the short terms isn't always in our best interest in the long term. But acting like our emotions aren't there is not the answer. Emotions will find ways to sneak out if you attempt to do this. A psychologically healthy person will be able to restrain their emotions if a situation demands it, but also take the time later to express them fully, so as to prevent an uncontrollable emotional buildup.
And therein lies the problem. Each gender is being socialized to an unhealthy extreme. However women end up paying the price because men get to write the rules of what's acceptable and not, particularly in the context of the workplace. Because men are the socially empowered party, their inappropriate behavior will end up being handwaved more often (hence "boys will be boys"), whereas that of a woman will not be - even if they are both equally in the wrong.
I have no doubt that we would have a similar problem if the roles of men and women were reversed. This isn't about one gender, this is about a power differential existing between two groups that each prefer to focus on equally important aspects of human behavior. The issue is that emotional expression is being held subordinate to emotional suppression. It is being done to such an extreme that we are no longer encouraged to merely suppress emotions, but instead repress them entirely.
You're absolutely right. But again, who is the empowered party? Men are socially empowered, ergo men write the rules, so the women who were taught to play by a different set of rules get left out in the cold. But its ****ty behavior in both cases. Instead of letting one gender write the rules for status posturing, why can't we agree that its ALL ****ty behavior and call out ALL of it when it happens? Because we don't.
I don't believe women are "better then" men in any way. But when we teach two different ways of doing things to two different groups of people, then let only one of them decide how to do things...should it shock you that the other group under-performs? Of course not. Since both ways are equally valid, and bring valuable stuff to the table, we should be acting accordingly, but we aren't.
As far as the whole competition thing goes, if I'm not mistaken, your study states that women tend to perform worse when competing - but only when competing *against men*. This tends to support the idea that women aren't inherently worse at competition, but rather, there is something about being alongside men that damages their abilities. There are lots of perfectly plausible reasons for this - for example, it could be that women feel extra pressure to "represent" other women, to "prove" they're good enough to work alongside men.
In the case of MtG in particular, a competitive environment often leads to competitors trying to push each other down on the way to the top, by any means necessary. This can and does include leveraging social power differentials - if you can make your female opponent feel extra uncomfortable and thus play worse by making an offensive gendered joke, so be it. If making yourself look better then another player means using logic like "she's a woman, she can't possibly be better then a guy, ergo I am better!", then yeah, people do that too.
The bottom line is there are LOTS of environmental pressures that can affect the statistical average performance of a large group. You can add pressures and cause a larger chunk of the bell curve to fail. You can take off pressures and cause a wider part of the bell curve to succeed. And the pressures we apply are not equal when viewed along the lines of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
Likely, but also irrelevant in regard to the pay gap difference.
I don't think this is as much a "men make rules" issue. Hiding one's emotions is almost certainly beneficial in the workplace. The Boss makes the rules, and he doesn't give a damn about how you feel. He only gives a damn about how much work you get done. If he could replace you with a feeling-less robot that could do the same job, he would.
You can argue over the profit-maximizing capitalist marketplace model is a male construct, where the only function is to increase the amount of competition that takes place, and to elevate one's social status above others. But then again...
Because statistically women are attracted to social status, and therefore the men who increase their social status through various methods increase their chance to reproduce, pass their genes onwards, and create even more competitive workplace in the future. Hell, I can cite studies that show that women are more attracted to men that act like dicks, because being able to do so without repercussions is an implication of alpha male status.
Men will stop fighting over who's the alpha male of the group once women stop being attracted to the alpha male. (Or more precisely, when there are no benefits for being the alpha male.)
... And ultimately I don't see that happening, and I can't see the capitalism going away. It's too profitable to the people in power.
The performance of women does not decrease; The performance of men increases in competitive environments. The performance of women simply does not increase. The study also tested it for single-sex competition. The gender cap persists, but is smaller than in mixed environments. There is also a control to see that the increase women have when competing against each other is due to competition, not absence of male participants.
Essentially, women do not increase their performance to outperform men, but do work harder to beat other women. Men, on the other hand, increase their performance in any kind of competition.
Alternative possibility is that the women assume themselves to be worse at the task than men, and do not see it worthwhile to increase their performance when competing against men. This can't make up the whole difference, though, as the gender cap persists even in single-sex tests.
These are also laboratory controlled tests, so I don't think the competitors are allowed to demean each other, (Or even talk to each other.) and a lot of environmental factors can be assessed.
----------
Ultimately, though. Data suggests complete apartheid for men and women, since men perform equally in either case, and women perform better in women-only groups than in mixed groups. I recommend no one tells this to the Fortune 500 companies.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Where are these women that go fawning over "alpha male" types? I certainly have never met any, and I have plenty of female friends. Where are these studies that suggest this? What methodology did they use? Also, I have to ask...if only "alpha male" types get sex, how the heck has our species managed to propagate for so long...? And what do you say of all the happily married men who clearly DON'T qualify as "alpha males"?
Also, even if what you say were remotely true, how does this in any way excuse posturing in the workplace?
It's irrelevant to wage gap... as is most of what has been discussed in the last few posts. I dont know where the alpha male comments came from but I dont see how they are relevant at all.
Empower party? What kind of talking point bull**** is that? The empowered party has nothing to do with male versus female. It's rich versus poor. The rich want to make more money, they will do that however is most efficient. I doubt that anyone could come up with a different model that favors women but still makes the same or greater profits. If they could someone would have done it by now. Jim the factory worker isnt part of some "good ol' boys" club where the big wigs have his back...
If capitalism itself favors male work tendencies because men work better in competitive environments it seems to me that it's just going to be that way. Arguing over whether or not it's "ideal" for men to suppress their emotions is irrelevant because it's not going to change in the context of making wages fair. Arguing over whether or not we should change our economic model because it happens to favor competitive people which happens to favor the male gender is ridiculous.
Not necessarily alpha male types. Alpha males. In modern society, this usually translates to people that are either rich or highly regarded in society, such as lawyers and doctors.
Here, for starters:
Women select mates based on social status. (Men based on physical fitness.)
There's a significant link between your paycheck and the amount of sex.
Wealth has a strong correlation to the amount of offspring in males.
One of the largest factors in the amount of orgasms reported by women in china is the income of their partner. (No, I'm not kidding. And yes, they did control for age, physical fitness, and everything else.)
Women systematically rate men standing in front of a Porsche as more attractive than those standing in front of a Honda Civic. (Exact same picture too, mind you.)
Wealthy and well educated men have more biological children (My favourite part of this study is the data that shows that intelligence decreases the amount of offspring you have.)
Displaying positive emotion makes men less attractive to women. (Proud-looking men, on the other hand, were very attractive.)
I'm sure I can dig up more if needed.
I'm not saying only alpha males have sex. I'm saying they have more sex, and more importantly, more offspring.
Also alpha males in history have had a lot of sex. Something like 0.5 of the entire planet can be traced to Genghis Khan. I don't even want to make assumptions about how large part of Arab countries can be traced to some of their ancient kings who had 850 wives.
From the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology, happiness is an irrelevant factor.
Excuse? It doesn't. It doesn't need to. It does, however, explain it. Did you know Higher social class predicts unethical behaviour? - It doesn't make the unethical behaviour any more ethical, but it explains why it happens.
EDIT:
If it can be showed that women are attracted to social status in males, this would correlate into evolutionary benefits for successful men, which would make men more competitive. This would, in turn, affect the workplace, and how difficult it is for women to enter it.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
This is based on a flawed Marxist way of looking at society. In reality it's more like men police men, women police women, and sometimes they police each other. Leaders power came form their status and that was largely shaped by their relationship to women. Genghis Kahn once said he only had two people in the world he feared, his mother and his wife. Men usually (about 99.999%) of the time have no interest in shaping womens spheres of power.
It's more like society needed women and men to complete certain functions to survive and the ways that best accomplished this irregardless of how well they worked in terms of empowerment is how societies evolved.
As feminist try to reframe conscription as a rich vs poor issue I could reframe women's suffrage the same way.
Ultimately it's just more of the same in your face agitator propaganda. Just like "feminism is just the belief that men and women are equal" crap earlier in this thread, which is as intellectually dishonest as "Marxism is just the belief that all people are equal."
......uhhhh....
I mean, um, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
No man would ever want to, say, interfere on something like contraception, or abortion, right? Or...the variety of other insane overflowing from that notion.
AND how the hell are those MEN interferring in WOMENS spheres of power when statistically speaking men and women hold almost identical views on the subject?
Do pro-life women simply not exist?
You do understand women are 55% of voters and even the most bible thumpingist republican needs the support of conservative women. Or do conservative women also not exist?
Is anyone else curious where the 77% figure comes from? I mean, I'm not in charge of deciding salaries at my company but I'm pretty sure there isn't a little spreadsheet that says "if they're a woman, multiply their salary by .77". I mean, ostensibly pay scales ignore gender, right? So how is the number persisting?
I did a modicum of research and apparently 2/3 of the gap is explained by the professions women are in vs men, and experience. Generally women are in lower-paying jobs, and fewer women are in high-paying jobs. So, ok, that's not great, but it's a lot better than the idea I had previously, that some corporate jagoffs are intentionally paying women almost 3/4 of their male counterparts.
The remaining 1/3 gap (so around 7.5% of base salary) is constant even with equal qualifications, job type, etc. So that's still bad, but it's a 92.5 cents on the dollar instead of 77. I've got one theory about what might cause it (based on nothing whatsoever) - thinking about jobs in my own field (programming, like everyone else here and also their respective mothers) I suspect that women are more likely to take a job at a company that pays lower, but has more appeal in what they'll be doing. My job, for example, is fine and pays great, but it's not really something that's especially fulfilling. Because, traditionally, women aren't as expected to provide for their family or whatever, I think they're more likely to go with the job that's more fulfilling than the one that pays better. When I cruise around dating sites it seems like a lot more women are trying to find jobs that are fulfilling, whereas men are more interested in what makes more money. This is all 150% anecdotal but I suspect I'm not the only one that's noticed it.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not convinced that the statistic is caused by women getting screwed over by the man. I think it has a lot more to do with the sort of jobs that women choose to seek out. What that boils down to, for any women in the audience, is that I think you're able to earn as much as a man (or hopefully at least close) so long as you're looking at the same jobs. You're not getting the shaft purely because of your gender. I hope.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Burden of proof isn't on me. (Although I did do google searches with the name of the article + rebuttals.) Until proper rebuttals are provided, articles in scientific journals can be assumed to be true. This is pretty much a given in scientific community, because otherwise it would be impossible to provide citations without committing all the tests again yourself.
For a number of potential reasons. Not the least of which is that talking about the subject in academic community using your own name is a deliberate suicide of your career.
Breeding pairs. That's because in practice, the wolf packs are usually just a breeding pair and their offspring. The term is still valid, as the pack leader behaviour does exist when packs interact, and when solitary wolves with no family connections are put together. Besides, the etymological use of Alpha is correct. It's signifier of the highest rank.
And then we get to the part where the behaviour exists in, like thousands of animal species, and has been disgarded as only partially accurate only in case of wolves. Even then we can discard the idea of the pack having an absolute alpha, but we still fit the criteria for everyday usage of the word, because there is still strong hierarchical structure.
----------
Either way, I'm willing to admit that one of the studies I found was faulty. As far as I can tell, it still shows correlation in the amount of sex reported by income, and shows positive correlation in many other metrics between sexual life and wealth.
So, are you going to concede the part that women find men more attractive the more wealthy they are, which was the point I was trying to make, or start finding faults in the other experiments?
----------
Horizontal vs Vertical segregation. See Myth 3. (Whether or not you agree with all, or even most that Catherine Hakim says in the document, it's a pretty good rundown of the issue.)
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
You and many others are going to have a hard time proving this. If it could be proven, the said employer would be in major heat for doing it. I'm sure LL was referring to punishments that do not go noticed. Not literal corrective actions.
Don't know what to say to your random wall of citations. I can only HOPE that they are peer reviewed, and that the analysis is objective...however, many of them are tagged as "Evolution Psychology"-related. I have been told that said field is a load of BS by at least two PhDs who work in fields concerning the study of human behavior. Now, granted, I'm sure the Evo Psych people say the same things about other disciplines, but still.
As far as the "Alpha Male" structure in nature? It may or may not be present. It certainly is NOT present in humanity's closest living relative, the Bonobo. So whether or not that line of behavior is "natural" or a social construct we've invented is a toss-up at best, from everything I've heard.
First of all idk where this 33% is coming from.
Secondly, I don't think the 7.5 is based on people with the exact same job (i.e. cashier at whole foods in Portland), I assume they're partitioning on some broader type (i.e. cashier). So my suggestion is that maybe a woman is more likely to take a job cashiering at whole foods in portland because she wants to live in Portland and she wants to support whole foods' commitment to the environment or whatever and she likes the people more, whereas a guy in the same position may be more willing to take the cashiering job in detroit at wal-mart even though he hates wal-mart and hates all the people there and hates the city, because it pays more (ok, that's probably not true but I'm not going to spend all day trying to think of a better example).
Obviously the 7.5% can't be COMPLETELY unaccounted for or it wouldn't exist. They just haven't figured out why it's there based on the partitions they've created.
As far as stock trading, I'm not so sure - I think the world as a whole might benefit, but would the actual brokerage? I don't know, honestly asking. I know jack about the stock market. But generally the model seems to be "screw the world as long as we're making money" and I'm not sure "less aggressive" is what helps that model.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Evolutionary Psychology gets a lot of bad rap. Some of the issues are moral implications, and the fact that people tend to commit the naturalist fallacy. I.E: Because it's natural, it's morally just. Despite it being a commonly listed fallacy in any debate handbook, people still use it in combination with Evolutionary Psychology to justify things. Because for some reason people want to apply anything to their morals.
It happens especially much with right-wingers in Evolutionary Psychology. This has led into the field getting colored pretty far to the right. There are some solid examples of this, such as left-looking conclusions, such as Peter Kropotkin's study that found mutual aid to be an important factor affecting evolution, being more or less disregarded.
Evolutionary Psychology relatively good for judging the situation, and understanding the current situation. At the same time, it's more or less worthless for deciding what we should change going into the future. If you are willing to accept the naturalist fallacy as a legit argument though, **** starts to really hit the fan.
Additionally, Evolutionary Psychology is surprise surprise, pretty bad at saying anything about individual cases. It's very bad at telling why a specific individual thinks the way they do, but it's pretty solid at modelling the tendencies of a large set of data towards thinking one way or another.
Essentially, it's natural science applied to humanistic issues, and the two clash.
Bonobos have Alpha Females, though.
Whether it's natural or a social construct doesn't really matter. Either way, there is a preference towards a certain things (Wealth, status), and as such those characteristics are being rewarded. It's not really feasible to expect people to stop trying to get those characteristics through any means possible as long as this remains the case.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
My point was that discrimination against men is often reframed that way.
I didn't provide one journal article. I provided multiple, all coming to a similar conclusion, done in multiple areas around the world. Even the one which had a mistake in it still enforced the general idea I was trying to explain, despite differing in details.
Using citations as a signifier of credibility is an argumentum ad populum. I am not particularly popular with the conventions of this field, but in a lot of fields, for example Mathematics, it's also ridiculous. Because some papers get referred to by every paper in the same field as they are, even when there's no reason to.
And since when is 2009 "old".
No, it seems that you are the one who is confused about the word.
In all of my biology courses, which is quite a few credits worth of them, I have never seen a more strict definition for Alpha than the highest-ranking animal in the group. Klaus Immelmann's Dictionary of Ethology doesn't define Alpha, but explains it under Dominance. Let me quote:
There is usually a power struggle involved. In a lot of animals it is violent, but doesn't have to be. In humans there is definitely a power struggle, but often a nonviolent one. The question asked of me was "Why can't we stop this status posturing in the workplace and call it out?". The power struggle is a way to increase one's status in the hierarchy, and my linked studies are aimed to show that raising one's status is desirable because it increases your fitness.
I have linked self-confidence to income in this thread, actually.
Because it's impossible. Because everyone can't rank higher than everyone else. Bearing in mind that you were confused about the terminology, though, I'll try to answer this in a way that takes that into accord.
The answer is that women select for Alphas, as in people ranking highly on the social ladder, but the things that contribute towards your status change over time as technology develops.
In addition, it has been shown that people prefer just leaders, over domineering* ones. You can have leadership and alpha male status in a group without being overbearing or tyrannizing.
Evolution is also a slow process. It is not a case of only alphas have sex and therefore children in humans. They simply have more. This might be the difference between 2.2 to 1.9 children on average. So while the traits that contribute to having improved status in society, I.E: Self-confidence, are being selected for, it's not like the people with lack of confidence are instantly eliminated from the gene pool. Traits that are being selected for get more common slowly, especially in humans where the interval between generations is much longer than, say in fruit flies.
In addition, there was a claim that men don't find self-confidence desirable in women. Assuming that this is the case, same trait can bear negative correlation to fitness in one sex. So while it is being selected for in males, it can be selected against in females. Assuming that the genes that contribute to this trait in women and men are the same, the positive selection over multiple generations can be a zero-sum game.
I'm sorry, but it seems like you're trying to hammer away evidence contrary to your beliefs based on incorrect ideas on how biology, and specifically evolution, operates.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Here is some food for thought- are these fields "dominated by men" because most males will do any job that makes them enough money to be comfortable with the least effort?
I look at my own family. I am going to school to be a mortician, my wife dropped out of college after 1 year because it was too difficult, and she was going to become a CPA. Why am I going to be a mortician? High pay, good benefits, stable employment in a growing industry with only a 2 year degree required. It has been seen as a male dominated field, until recently as more women are realizing that if they are willing to do the job they can get paid.
I look at my nieces- One was going to school for marketing and switched to creative writing (but will complain about the pay gap at any given opportunity). Guess what, you work at a veterinary office and major in the arts, you are not going to earn as much as the guy who went to school to BE a vet.
Another niece decided she wasn't going to go to college. She went and became a hairdresser, because she wants to make her own hour and not have to work so much. Her words, not mine.
Another was in school for law, and decided to switch to journalism. She works as a retail store manager for a major clothing store chain.
To quote a great article quoting a great study-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/
Your choices in life determine your value in the workforce. Men are in general more willing to sacrifice their own well being, their own free time and happiness because that is the societal expectation of us. Why do you think we die 6 years earlier, and why widowers don't survive nearly as long without their spouses?
When I worked retail, if overtime was offered to a group of cashiers the only ones willing to stay were the men. When I was 19 to 23 I worked for a major retailer and showed up to work 3 hours early every day. Some days I sat and ate breakfast and read a book until my shift started at 9am, but some weeks, especially beach days in the summer, this would mean 15 hours of overtime because someone else called out. Those same women who loved to complain when they didn't get hours would call out if they were asked to work 4 days in a row. These would be the same people complaining to corporate when my FEMALE store manager would give me a 5% raise every year and a 5% merit raise once a year when they got only a 3% annual raise. It is really easy to exceed expectations when the laziness of those around you sets the bar so low.
Society and the current "princess culture" has raised 2 generations of women that think being pampered and fawned over is the solution. I married my wife partially because she isn't afraid to work. Instead of being "Wow I am amazing and special just for having certain genitalia" we should focus more on how hard work sets you apart in this world.
Current MTGO Player and paper reseller/speculator.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
I dont see the current gender equality establishment getting behind this as it would fly in the face of the female tribalism that often defines these issues.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.