They were almost raped, guys.

[odeon]

Hmm.

If there were a lot of independent studies that made a mess out of the statistics they used, statistically (pun intended) the studies would point in all directions. We'd not have a situation where most of these independent studies would point in the same general one.

Unless they weren't independent, of course, in which case the scale of conspiracy required would make the JFK shooting look like bad daytime TV.

It doesn't add up. Sorry, Al.

[Al Swearegen]

Hmm.

If there were a lot of independent studies that made a mess out of the statistics they used, statistically (pun intended) the studies would point in all directions. We'd not have a situation where most of these independent studies would point in the same general one.

Unless they weren't independent, of course, in which case the scale of conspiracy required would make the JFK shooting look like bad daytime TV.

It doesn't add up. Sorry, Al.

Not at all.

You are an independent researcher. You are there to do a case study.
Due to the limitations of privacy and sheer raw data, you are given what information?
Gender, gross salary, rough job clarification, job industry, state

Maybe whether it is full time or part time

Again, the questions of such elements as are influenced by personal choice are job desirability and popularity, remote location, overtime, danger money or the like.

With the same limited information, how are you going to get meaningful information?

So yes 100% the same errors could be committed again and again with no one able to go deeper

[odeon]

Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.

[RageBeoulve]

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?

LOL no. It would have to be smaller than the earth. They have to have no choice but to engage with one another, and get along.

Fighting is cool, but personal. Like fucking. Its between the fighter and the fightee, and doesn't spill on to people that aren't involved you see?

This is not the way things are currently done. Some fights between as little as two people can effect the entire global population.

['andersom']

I don't know for certain about the salary difference. I know the statistics show that it's likely, but I don't know a socially acceptable way to find out the salary of everyone at the company with the same job title. I'm outside the rumor circles because I barely socialize.

I do know that about 95% of the executives are male.

A couple years ago when we were implementing a feature for players to put their own faces on their custom characters in the game we were making, I brought up the question of what female players would do. (The characters in that game were traditionally male.) It was quickly decided that resources couldn't be spared to implement a female option. Last year the question came up of rebuilding the randomizer that populates the crowds. Again, though every character was being remodeled, it was decided that it was too much effort to make some of them female.

It's decisions like that which lead me to suspect that equalizing glass-ceiling type issues just isn't on the agenda. If there were hard proof, of course there could be lawsuits and stuff, but what makes it insidious is that there isn't any hard proof, it's a long series of small inconsequential decisions.

I've seen it firsthand. They are sometimes very sneaky about it, excusing themselves with "different work descriptions" and "different levels of experience", but also relying on the fact that here, at least, salaries are frequently individually negotiated and so comparing numbers is made difficult.

Equal pay for equal work doesn't sound complicated but unless your work description--and your work--is very basic, it's easy to dodge.

Found out something "interesting" at work. The "new" men have got different contracts from the "new" women. The women have zero hour contracts, the men have contracts with their hours described in them.
In pay, it makes no difference, they both get minimal wages. But, the moment the company needs to cut back on working hours, they can cut back on the women with ease, they are entitled to zero hours a week, and every hour on top of that is a bonus. The men, if the company wants to cut back on that, they will have to take legal steps to be able to do so.
Does this mean the men are evil? That men are evil by default? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that this is a case that shows feminism is not done yet, yes, it does. Companies get away with treating a group different from another group, because the women hired still are so grateful that they get a job.
So, management exploits the option to treat different to their own advantage.
Management, in this case, consists of mainly women. Doesn't change the fact that this is a thing feminism still needs to point out.

[odeon]

It doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.

['andersom']

In my male dominated workplace, paternity leave is the same amount of time as maternity leave, and most guys choose to take it when they have the option. It hasn't helped some of the other inequalities, but it has helped that one.

Good for your workplace.
Lots of men have a really hard time getting paternity leave here. Or to negotiate with their boss to work a day a week less. For women that is easier, so, it is the women staying at home more, if total daycare is not what the couple wants. And there the income difference between men and women has a new reason to be different. Men have it harder to negotiate parenting time.

['andersom']

I will start with these mentions of "recent times".

In days of old, women did not work, men did.

In days of old, women worked. They had to, unless they were part of a very rich family, that could manage to live without the women participating in making a living. Families that rich, one may wonder how much work the men did do also.

Most people were "lower" class. For most living was about surviving. Women worked, taking a break to give birth, a break that could sometimes be not more than just a few hours. Kids that survived would work too.

The romantic idea of a man providing for his family, and his family living life comfortably while dad brought home the bacon is a modern idea.

['andersom']

It doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.

Maybe I will rant some more, one day, in a not visible for all part of the forum.

['andersom']

Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.

[RageBeoulve]

Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.

At least you're concerned with actual crimes, rather than men having urinals to piss in or something.

['andersom']

Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.

At least you're concerned with actual crimes, rather than men having urinals to piss in or something.

 

I was in a big store couple of weeks ago. There was a mother complaining that she had to go home, because her toddler was not allowed to use the toilet in that store.
That made me think of my mother, shopping with a grandchild, buying kids clothes. Kid had to pee, it was not allowed. My mum answered that she was a client, with another kid in the fitting room, and that she had no time getting home or to a restaurant in time, so that she would then let the kid just pee where it stood. Amazing how fast the toilet was available after that.

[RageBeoulve]

Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.

At least you're concerned with actual crimes, rather than men having urinals to piss in or something.

 

I was in a big store couple of weeks ago. There was a mother complaining that she had to go home, because her toddler was not allowed to use the toilet in that store.
That made me think of my mother, shopping with a grandchild, buying kids clothes. Kid had to pee, it was not allowed. My mum answered that she was a client, with another kid in the fitting room, and that she had no time getting home or to a restaurant in time, so that she would then let the kid just pee where it stood. Amazing how fast the toilet was available after that.

Oh, I didn't explain why that was funny, did I? I was having a conversation with this radical feminist once. She brought up that feminism was still necessary because men have neato urinals to piss in whereas women only have toilets and stalls.

I tried to explain that it was less expensive and took less effort to install a urinal, but she didn't believe me. So I pulled out the laptop and actually googled the common price of the materials that would be used to install urinals and full stalls.

She told me to go fuck myself and left. Lol. I've encountered a lot of people like this, and it really seems as if when confronted with facts they react angrily with denials and accusations of having a small penis or being a mysoginist. Its similar to challenging religion.

[Al Swearegen]

Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.

Haha, did not see this thread come up for a while and forgot about it.

You know what information is shown on my tax return that goes to the Tax Department? My gross salary and my tax and my net salary.
There is nothing in deductions or whatever really.

So the place that the statisticians will pull data from will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics and they in tern will get most of their details in respect to the Gross salary off the Australia Taxation Office.

Now, again, IF they are getting my Gross salary as informed by my tax return and my tax and Net salary and they did theta for each of my colleagues, then I would get more than most of the others and the guys on average would get higher than the girls.

Based on this small instance, and based on precisely the information that would be made available to the statisticians, what kind of information would be available for them to collate? If ATO did not record more than the gross tax and net salary then what would the statisticians assess of my gross salary towards voluntary overtime or commission? If you say none, then I say simply, then I would be shown as earning higher than any of the ladies in my workplace and NOT because of bias but because I earn more commission and more overtime.

If similar situations happen with other men in the office - and I know there are others. If similar is in other offices and workplaces around Australia where lack of available information is given to contextualise difference, then a statistician can be good, bad or indifferent and still get the same result with it being out in the same way.   

[ZEGH8578]

Its similar to challenging religion.

it IS religion, if not a belief in a deity, it is definitely "faith"

faith is impossible to argue with, and most politics and ideologies are grounded in faith.