They were almost raped, guys.

[Al Swearegen]

I generalized a bunch of specific explanations. Do you want to argue about whether there is any inference in them or not? That runs into the same thing that you seem to object to about these studies. You'll accept one specific example of something but when it comes to describing trends from a set of examples, you reject the conclusions. Is your problem with the form of the argument or with the specific conclusions drawn?

I would have thought that I explained the problem I had with the position, pretty clearly.

If you received report after report saying that .... I dunno, one in every three women was a murderer, would you say "Wow one in three?" then get nervy with every woman you meet thinking that there is a high probability that "She is the one". When in a setting with 15 women, you distance yourself in case one of the five goes crazy? Or would you say "OK there are a lot of these reports BUT I think that there is a better explanation than the one most obvious. Maybe the figures are wrong? Maybe the methodology is incorrect? Maybe the definitions are incorrect? Maybe there is a specific reason why people want to draw such a bizarre conclusion? Maybe the pool of data they are drawing on is incorrect or corrupted"

If you took the latter position, I would say this was a reasonable position, regardless of how many case studies showed up supporting the erroneous conclusion. Now if you mentioned these case studies to me, I would snort in derision too. I would not say "But c'mon Py, the case studies can not all be wrong".

But OK, you ask what is my concern? In this instance, we are lead to believe that the difference in what men and women earn for the same job is 15% in favour of men.
15% is not 50%. It is a much smaller figure. In fact approx $87 to every $100. A small injustice? Getting better but a ways to go to equality? Patriarchy giving ground?
All of this well and good and no doubt a percentage which suits certain agendas. But putting that 15% into practice

11 600 000 Australians working of which half are women. So on average 5 800 000 of those people are getting underpaid by 15%. That is not as peanuts as it sounds. The average salary in Australia is $72800. So on raw math (taking into account this is a full time salary and not all the 5 800 000 will be full time workers (approximately 50% are not) so ($72800 x 0.15 x 2 900 000) $31 668 000 000 is how much the black hat employers can rob women of money WITHOUT being systematically bent over by trade unions and a law court geared in their favour notwithstanding the fact that the employers would be very blatantly breaking the law in doing so and often leaving the very keys to such a fall in the hands of what would appear female dominated Human resource sector (not to mention the fact that they continue to hire men who would apparently cost them more for the privilege of doing the same job

$31.668 trillion. That is not peanuts. That is not a few rogue employers, nor old boys club nor a few dyed in the wool chauvinists in positions of unearned and undeserved power. To get a return to reflect this would be in the 0.5% range. THAT would be believable and even then an embarrassing admission. By for 15% to be able to be entertained we have to believe a few things NOT:

15% is not 50%. It is a much smaller figure. In fact approx $87 to every $100. A small injustice? Getting better but a ways to go to equality? Patriarchy giving ground?
All of this well and good and no doubt a percentage which suits certain agendas. But putting that 15% into practice

But that the majority (at least) if not ALL workplaces in Australia contribute to such a discrepancy. That is the only conclusion to draw, with these figures ($31.668 trillion).....unless

OK there are a lot of these reports BUT I think that there is a better explanation than the one most obvious. Maybe the figures are wrong? Maybe the methodology is incorrect? Maybe the definitions are incorrect? Maybe there is a specific reason why people want to draw such a bizarre conclusion? Maybe the pool of data they are drawing on is incorrect or corrupted"

In the event that the industries being compared are different, the job status (part time to full time), location compared (remote to local), Overtime and shift allowance compared with Gross pays without that extra work done, and the like, you are not comparing like with like and you are being disingenuous if you are.

It s easy to do and to draw conclusions on such things. Like the whole "lumping in" of smacking a child with "child abuse/child violence" and then using the result of studies on child abuse/child violence to draw statistics which favour a conclusion. Something like if child a is taken to with a baseball bat and ends up in hospital and child two gets a smack on his bottom when he is naughty. Then of this imaginary sample of two, 50% of the sample called "Children who are abused" are later shown to have psychological scarring and high anxiety and criminal tendencies. We then could use this sample to make a statement of 50% of children who have any physical discipline become basket cases psychologically and tend towards criminal behaviour, therefore smacking children...
It is dishonest. Blatantly. But it is an interesting trick that without the benefit of looking through the numerous case studies do we get an idea of what the trick is and how they all manage to get the same result. Then we have to understand why the trick? It usually comes down to a social change or a social movement. A pointed attempt to elicit a change (good or bad) and a want to paint a picture whilst looking impartial.

Pyraxis, you are about the most contrary person i know and if anyone would appreciate this objection to the three card trick, I would have thought this person would be you. I would have thought it would have gone against your core to have a movement seek to use the public as sheep. Well I would have expected that of you, Lit and Rage. It looks like i was right with Rage. Lit, I am not so sure about.

[odeon]

Pyraxis is not being contrary in this case, mate, not the way I see it, and I've been at the receiving end on more occasions than I can remember. She, it would seem, is as baffled as I am.

As for breaking against the law: yes, assuming that your laws are anything like ours (and I believe they are), I'd say there's probably a lot of that. Don't you think it is something that should be investigated?

As for your examples: why should I address them when you dismiss real-life numbers? The examples (and correct me if I'm wrong) are something you came up with. You also link to one specific case and ask us to accept it while you, at the same time, ignore the several independent studies.

Oh, and if you dismiss the independent studies all over the globe, then how do you account for them? What do they do wrong? Are you seriously suggesting that every single one ignores every hard-working man and every part-time woman when collecting their statistics? Really? Or is it that they aren't independent at all, that there is a feminist conspiracy? We are NOT talking about a fictitious one-in-every-three-women-is-a-murderer case, we are talking about actual numbers.

Sorry, mate, but your arguments do not add up. I don't see why we are still having this discussion.

[Pyraxis]

Ok yeah I was in a contrary mood yesterday and felt like arguing. But Al, I still don't get what you're basing your beliefs on aside from wanting to rebel against a feminist agenda.

I agree there's a feminist agenda. I think we established there's an old boys' club as well. I don't stand in either camp. I'm not asking you to accept the full beliefs that are packaged as the feminist agenda. I certainly don't think people should be sheep.

I agree studies should be taken with a skeptical eye, especially when it's a controversial issue and there are lots of contradictory studies.

I'm not even sure why I care what you think about the matter, since you're not personally in a position to affect the jobs of myself or any women I know who might be underpaid.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes I WOULD love an investigation and conversely I think there will be every effort to not have an investigation into it.

I am a big believer in fair. They may well get a couple of of businesses acting illegally. I do not believe bad behaviour should be anything but exposed.

How funny would it be for them to do this investigation, Australia wide into every business (in wanting to find this 15% difference and fix it) and come back with 0.25% instead of 15% figures? What happens then? What happens when Australia asks the obvious question?
Yes I would like to see an investigation.

There may well be bias in these "independent case studies" BUT there is definite interest in a positive result.
There has literally been industries built around women's rights. The two biggest arguments against equal treatment and fairness around women is equal representation in the boardrooms and equal pay. I think that the equal pay is the bigger issue because most men are not able to get into the boardroom either, it is real 1%'er issue. Can you imagine that a pubic full-scale investigation reaping a complete discrediting of all previous studies? How would something like this be explained away?

Personally I do not see it ever getting investigated and if it did I do not think it would be public or transparent. I think whilst they can keep the social problem shoved into people's face, and blame workforces and of course the men that run them to be underpaying women 31 trillion dollars, why would you risk exposing that this is not true?

If it was true, then absolutely the explorers would need to be fired and jailed and so on. IF it was true. I contest that it is not and that studies implying it is, are wrong.

[Semicolon]

This thread is much too long for the number of posts in it.

[odeon]

I think we've probably covered this issue by now. Just one thing you said, Al, that I wish to comment on:

most men are not able to get into the boardroom either

Most people are not able to get into the boardroom, full stop. But most of the few that do are men.

Oh, and I agree with you and Py--there is a feminist agenda, obviously. I very much doubt it is comparable in strength with the old boy's club as of yet, however. Certainly, while I'm sure both parties would like to see the numbers skewed in their favour, I'm pretty sure the latter currently has the advantage.

[Al Swearegen]

Oh, and if you dismiss the independent studies all over the globe, then how do you account for them? What do they do wrong? Are you seriously suggesting that every single one ignores every hard-working man and every part-time woman when collecting their statistics? Really? Or is it that they aren't independent at all, that there is a feminist conspiracy? We are NOT talking about a fictitious one-in-every-three-women-is-a-murderer case, we are talking about actual numbers.

Sorry, mate, but your arguments do not add up. I don't see why we are still having this discussion.

Sorry I had only just really seen that you were asking me to say as to how statistically can get messed up.
Well...I did give the example of children of child abuse and child violence being lumped in with statistics on children who have their bottoms smacked for being naughty.
Now regardless of what you think of this personally, where you are drawing from a well of children beaten with chains and bats and punched, then the conclusions you can draw from this well are pretty horrendous. You do not NEED to then say "Well hang on the statistics you are quoting at me as applies to violent parents or whatever, I do not think bear ANY relation to the child who gets a smacked bottom. I am sure they are NOT at any greater risk of a child who does not get smacked BUT I agree that a child beaten with chains and bats is going to be screwed."
"No", you say, "this case study (of which the children that get a smack on the bottom are a part) shows that they too are part of the average risk because the percentage is evenly divided amoung the participants. These are statistics and therefore they can not be misrepresented"
You HAVE to be able to see the problem there.

At present there is a social push for people to work longer and retire later if at all. Already there are "impartial" articles and the begin rumblings of what a terrific idea it is for people to work longer and how working older people are better off in so many ways and so on.
Case studies will follow if they have not already. We sheep nod and bah along appropriately.
BUT....I know that for every spritely 90 year old there is countless old men and some who age is not so kind with. People who after the age of about retirement age get "muddled", "slower", "frail", and are subject to debilitating health problems.
The powers that be would have us overlook this and say such things as "retirement as a concept, is relatively a new concept. In the past people worked through their lives...."
It is a nice bit of bullshit line to sell to try to convince the baby boomer to work tip they drop and perhaps put their lives and others at risk to save on pension money.
I have no doubt IF the case studies are not here, they will be soon and they will all be uniform in their agreement and state that old people should keep working and they all will be "independent and impartial".

But as for the way the statistics in the labour force can be skewed? (Note they only have to make one or two errors)
* Full-time vs Part time.
* Job Industry vs Job Industry (For example a cleaner in Community and Health sector can not compete with the wage of that in Mining)
* Danger money component not assessed in salaries
* Negotiated salaries (not subject to direct comparison as one person asking and demanding more or being compared to a person on similar role in smaller opposing company is likely to reflect what company can afford)
* Overtime being not factored in
* Shift Allowance
* Remote location allowance.

Many of these things may well favour men IF they choose to do them.
If a man is silly enough to do high rise window washing and finds himself in a high paid male dominated industry, it does not have anything to do with unfairness.
If men are more keen to be contractors in War torn areas and oil rigs and get paid big bucks accordingly.....fair call.

If in all these aspects they do not take steps to take these things into account then it is not fair comparisons and every case study relying on such things is inherently flawed.

Worse still it shows a a bottom-line differential without alluding as to what may be the causes and so WE have to reach conclusions and the obvious would be that employers underpay women unfairly and for exactly the same job.
Start knocking these things above, over and that difference will start to evaporate.

[Al Swearegen]

I think we've probably covered this issue by now. Just one thing you said, Al, that I wish to comment on:

most men are not able to get into the boardroom either

Most people are not able to get into the boardroom, full stop. But most of the few that do are men.

Oh, and I agree with you and Py--there is a feminist agenda, obviously. I very much doubt it is comparable in strength with the old boy's club as of yet, however. Certainly, while I'm sure both parties would like to see the numbers skewed in their favour, I'm pretty sure the latter currently has the advantage.

I on the other hand think that the Old Boy's Club is far less pervasive and not nearly as strong as the feminists. I tend to think of the Old Boy's Club as I do politicians. I think of them as privileged suits with no idea about the world, gifted with the best education and University money could buy and alternatively pissing into each other's pockets or stabbing each other in the back for advantage. People to which values and morals are ambivalent things not to stand behind but to use towards agendas.

I have developed a disdain for them. I would like them almost to a man to be herded into a big gladiator pit with a knife and a shield and say "Hey dude, you are up against your weekend golfing partner".

IN so far as this seems rather condemning, I do not think it favours the Old Boy's Club. I would definitely say the follow on question about boardrooms certainly doesn't favour women (and partially through their own choices) but maybe through choices from the Old Boy's Club BUT as we said, most men do not get into the boardroom either so I think that is their area of influence. It is daily seen and hangs around them like a bad fart

Feminism in my mind is much more subversive and pervasive. A lot of this is based around personal observation and social acceptances and lies told. The kind of things not inferred by an old boys club.
I also do not like that Feminism relies so heavily on victimhood. Men as the oppressors and women as the oppressed. I do not like the way in recent times men are being typecast in social media as either incompetent, stupid, violent, dispensable, dependent. clueless, or whatever. Women on the other hand are being typecast as "together", sassy, smart, intelligent, independent and so on. It is none too subtle. I do not like that the gender studies courses that are in the university are really just Feminist propaganda sessions run and graded by Feminist radicals. I do not like how men are considered of no real value except for child support cheque in Divorce Courts. I do not like how in many countries, there isa power of veto for studies, handed over from one Government Department to the next because that representative is  Minister of Women's Studies (or its equivalent in whichever country) and that they have to block info ration on the basis that they consider it is not in women's interests or harmful to women. I do not like how feminists are up in arms about female genital mutilation but will laugh and applaud a woman cutting off a man's dick for not marrying her. I do not like how Mens Rights Organisations trying to get fundings for beds for battered males will receive no government funding and have to put up with protests from feminist groups and be accused of stealing resources and supporting rape and violence against women (how does that work? They say that the men involved want to to be a consideration that if a man bruises his knuckles on the face of a women he assaults...but that was never the case and it is rather a pathetic indictment. Men are victims of domestic abuse in approximately 45%-50% numbers apparently)

Yes I thin that the feminism worms have dined pretty freely and pretty well and as much as I despise and detest the Old Boy's Club I think they are not as bad as the Feminists. I think the worse crime though of Feminists is that they (in another lie) pretend it is all about equality and in a brilliant tactic, get people to nod their collective heads at them. "yes, we believe in equality, therefore we too are feminists. Feminism = Good. If Feminism = Bad then we blame the radicals. We like feminism because we are good people"

It is nauseating.

[Pyraxis]

I have developed a disdain for them. I would like them almost to a man to be herded into a big gladiator pit with a knife and a shield and say "Hey dude, you are up against your weekend golfing partner".

I would pay good money to see that. 

But we gotta have something to do with the feminists. I have the feeling that if you dumped them in a gladiator pit, they'd try to organize a sit-down strike. Something more subtle and pervasive is needed.

[Al Swearegen]

I have developed a disdain for them. I would like them almost to a man to be herded into a big gladiator pit with a knife and a shield and say "Hey dude, you are up against your weekend golfing partner".

I would pay good money to see that. 

But we gotta have something to do with the feminists. I have the feeling that if you dumped them in a gladiator pit, they'd try to organize a sit-down strike. Something more subtle and pervasive is needed.

Agreed +1

I think on something you said here about the not sure why it would matter to you either way and got me reflecting on why it might matter to me.
I have a big thing for "fair". I believe in the concept of a fair go for all.
The other thing is I do not want my girl either held back nor taught that her Dad and her brother and those men in her life are inconsequential. I do not want my boy to be manipulate and done over by a society that places no worth on his gender.
Not to say my of these things are or will ever be absolutes but I would not see them as such if I could help it or at least point out when I believe I see it

[Pyraxis]

My father is a geek and an academic, kind of opposite to the rough backcountry man who lives out the tradition of protecting and providing for the women in his life. He was a provider but not in a forceful way and he made sure I learned how to provide for myself. Being able to take care of myself doesn't make me think men are inconsequential. Actually I have a lot of respect for men who can protect on a physical level as well as financial.

I see it as more of a generational problem than a gender one. A lot of the young people who came of age in the recession have a hard time providing for even themselves, let alone a family. There's the stereotype of the impotent loser in his parents' basement, who doesn't have any pride in being a man. But there are also girls who work hard, do everything "right", and then are betrayed when it doesn't seem to lead to success in adulthood as they were taught it would. Meanwhile the parents from the older generation think they are lazy for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

In the USA at least, social mobility is at an extreme low. Is it the same in Australia? It does not strike me as very "fair".

[Al Swearegen]

My father is a geek and an academic, kind of opposite to the rough backcountry man who lives out the tradition of protecting and providing for the women in his life. He was a provider but not in a forceful way and he made sure I learned how to provide for myself. Being able to take care of myself doesn't make me think men are inconsequential. Actually I have a lot of respect for men who can protect on a physical level as well as financial.

I see it as more of a generational problem than a gender one. A lot of the young people who came of age in the recession have a hard time providing for even themselves, let alone a family. There's the stereotype of the impotent loser in his parents' basement, who doesn't have any pride in being a man. But there are also girls who work hard, do everything "right", and then are betrayed when it doesn't seem to lead to success in adulthood as they were taught it would. Meanwhile the parents from the older generation think they are lazy for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

In the USA at least, social mobility is at an extreme low. Is it the same in Australia? It does not strike me as very "fair".

I think that the problem if I can at all stereotype, is that the teenage to early twenties are generally trying to simultaneously get a job (career) and try out the dating scene. Then suddenly man and woman are in some sort of committed relationship and what? Suddenly is the realisation of a want to have children and time running out to make sure that the person is the right person to have children with, that the job is the right job or career path and that a bucketload of money needs to be starting to be saved. Even if this all can be done, children mean time out from work and a balance of home and family life and not to mention bigger expenses. 

Traditionally this has fallen on the man to step up and say "OK I got this covered. I will make this as painless as possible and as stress free as possible on you (the lady) and if I have to do the very things needed to earn extra money to look after the family, I will"

I personally remember not with much pleasure, working 12 hours shifts 6 days a week whilst having a pregnant wife so that we would be able to avoid the top of the range private hospital to birth my son.

I suspect that many women on some level actually welcome this response. They are knocked up and scared about the future and having a partner saying "Got this covered" i maybe not empowering but certainly piece of mind. Some may well say "No, that is not fair. How about we both work towards this and both do the harder yards?". That is OK too. Whatever is best for the family.

I suspect that once the kids come about (like with my kids) there is the inoculations, check ups, playgroup, playdates and whatever that many recent mothers feel a far greater drawing to and importance than keeping on top of the getting back to work. These things are shelved. The Dads? They work harder and longer hours at whatever their job is. Trying to cement the efforts they started making back in the past.

Of course in some instances, the time out of the workforce is shorter for women, sometimes through necessity and sometimes through need. It seems to me though, so very often, once this is experienced, "we can survive on his pay" mindset is a difficult one to shake. The whether to do part time rather than full-time work. Whether to find a job that is more family friendly or flexible in hours or less stressful become bigger considerations that a "career" and the abstract question of when to have another child.

The men generally do not get any of this. Any action or time off work or job change or extra children is simply more money the family needs and better budgeting and more hours or negotiating higher salary or getting that higher position.

There can be a greater balance and none of these are absolutes. I do not think any of the above ideas are bad or come from bad places or are even the only way to go. I know that the underclass ted not to have these choices and are perpetually trapped in a cycle of government handouts. I know the very rich tend not to have the same financial demands or sacrifices of choices.

Sometimes men stay at home and be the house husband. Sometimes the man or woman works from home and factors kids around this. Sometimes both manage with the help of extended family and or child minding and the such.

With this though there is a dampening on social mobility . Once kids are grown up, the adults find themselves often defined and held back by age at a time where they actually have the time to ramp up their career potential.

Not all of the above is "fair" in the sense of life often is not "fair" BUT I do think giving people an equal chance to make do is optimal. The hoarding of social capital and exclusion of one person, creed, religion, gender, race, culture fem being able to get on and have a fair go.

[RageBeoulve]

Ok yeah I was in a contrary mood yesterday and felt like arguing. But Al, I still don't get what you're basing your beliefs on aside from wanting to rebel against a feminist agenda.

I agree there's a feminist agenda. I think we established there's an old boys' club as well. I don't stand in either camp. I'm not asking you to accept the full beliefs that are packaged as the feminist agenda. I certainly don't think people should be sheep.

I agree studies should be taken with a skeptical eye, especially when it's a controversial issue and there are lots of contradictory studies.

I'm not even sure why I care what you think about the matter, since you're not personally in a position to affect the jobs of myself or any women I know who might be underpaid.

I agree there's a feminist agenda. I think we established there's an old boys' club as well. I don't stand in either camp.

I feel exactly the same. I want to cut down all their stupid little treehouses, burn them, and laugh in their faces for thinking they're more special than another gender or race.

I think its ALL stupid. I hate feminism, I hate male rights advocates, I hate atheism plus, I hate the KKK(yeah I see the KKK and sex equality groups as exactly the same thing), I hate muslim extremists (I hate religion in general). I hate them all. They're all stupid little monkeys flinging shit at each other, each one just as primitive and childish as the other.

If I had my way, they'd all be put in the same gigantic prison together for a couple of years so they would be forced to live with each other for an extended period of time.

[Pyraxis]

If I had my way, they'd all be put in the same gigantic prison together for a couple of years so they would be forced to live with each other for an extended period of time.

Would they call it Planet Earth?

[Jack]

If I had my way, they'd all be put in the same gigantic prison together for a couple of years so they would be forced to live with each other for an extended period of time.

Would they call it Planet Earth?