[Pants-of-dog]

As I said POD, they do not demonstrate. It is erroneous to believe that a) the 9% gap is all that remains after adjusting all relevant factors and that b) this can only be explained by "sexism".

Why is it erroneous?

They have factored for everything you mentioned. It is possible that sexism has magically disappeared and some hitherto unknown variable has magically burst on the scene to create this 9% wage gap.

Or it could simply be that sexism is still a factor.

[Soixante-Retard]

It is erroneous because, by their own admission, they haven't factored everything in.

So traditional human capital factors, taken together, do not explain that much of the gender gap. Then we have another specification, where we control for human capital but we additionally control for gender differences in industries and occupations.

On the other hand it could be due to some factors that employers know about that reflect productivity but are not possible for us to include in our analysis.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is erroneous because, by their own admission, they haven't factored everything in.

Science cannot possibly exclude every single other possible factor because there are literally an infinite number of possible factors.

These studies (more than one) all account for every factor they can think of, and they all corroborate each other's claim that a certain percentage cannot be explained by these other factors. Combine this with the fact that we know sexism is a real factor in modern society, and the only logical conclusion to draw is that sexism still causes a wage disparity.

[Soixante-Retard]

Science cannot possibly exclude every single other possible factor because there are literally an infinite number of possible factors.

If there are "literally" an infinite number of possible factors then why do you think sexism plays a substantial factor? The linked article factored somethings out to produce a figure of 9% and then left it as an exercise to the reader as to believe what this gap was due to, i.e. playing on the prejudices of the readers that sexism must be at work, because god damn it we factored everything else out! Of course, they admit they didn't and now your suggesting there is an " infinite number of possible factors".

[Pants-of-dog]

If there are "literally" an infinite number of possible factors then why do you think sexism plays a substantial factor? The linked article factored somethings out to produce a figure of 9% and then left it as an exercise to the reader as to believe what this gap was due to, i.e. playing on the prejudices of the readers that sexism must be at work, because god damn it we factored everything else out! Of course, they admit they didn't and now your suggesting there is an " infinite number of possible factors".

Because it is showing a pay gap favouring men over women, and sexism has traditionally (and currently) favoured men over women.

To assume that sexism is not a significant factor is to assume that this sexist dynamic magically disappeared and was replaced by another dynamic that we can't yet identify but does the exact same thing and is somehow not sexism.

Now, rather than making all those unrealistic assumptions, it is far more logical to make the single, simple, assumption that sexism still exists and plays a role.

[JRS1]

I don't discuss opinions.

But you have nothing but a one word reasoning for your opinion.

Again, this is merely your opinion.

So, is it sexism to have opinions like "women naturally make better parents, so it's alright to assume that they should quit their careers and take care of the baby while the man gets paid more for not parenting"?

I thought you didn't discuss opinions?

No, its not sexist to recognise differences in men and women.

And I never said anything that follows the quotes mark. Not even close.

[Pants-of-dog]

I thought you didn't discuss opinions?

No, its not sexist to recognise differences in men and women.

And I never said anything that follows the quotes mark. Not even close.

I find it interesting that you don't even think of it as sexism. This is why you get remarks like "sexism isn't a problem anymore"; because sexist people do not realise they are being sexist. It's unconscious.

[JRS1]

Could you please explain to me what I said that could be considered sexist.

[Pants-of-dog]

Could you please explain to me what I said that could be considered sexist.

The idea that women are biologically built to want to raise children instead of all the other possible options they could possibly want is sexist because it is an unproven assumption about a whole sex that has been used to justify things like paying them less.

[JRS1]

The idea that women are biologically built to want to raise children instead of all the other possible options they could possibly want is sexist because it is an unproven assumption about a whole sex that has been used to justify things like paying them less.

Yes, that idea would be sexist. But I never said that. You must have misread me.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, that idea would be sexist. But I never said that. You must have misread me.

viewtopic.php?p=14195013#p14195013

I personally think women are better attuned, better suited and actually want to raise children in the early years.

viewtopic.php?p=14195027#p14195027

I still think women would more likely want to be with the baby they carried for nine months, and they are generally best suited to it, and they shouldn't be penalised for it.

It sure sounds like you are saying that women are biologically built to want to raise children.

[JRS1]

The idea that women are biologically built to want to raise children instead of all the other possible options they could possibly want is sexist because it is an unproven assumption about a whole sex that has been used to justify things like paying them less.

Ive highlighted the key things that I didnt say.

I maintain that women are more likely to want to look after baby, they are generally better suited to rearing infants, and a simple mechanism could be put into place to reduce the subsequent pay gap between men and women.

Id extend that mechanism to men raising children as well.

[Soixante-Retard]

I hope I am not accused of being sexist if I make the trivial observation that women are "biologically built" to bear children. Taking time out to have, i.e. bear, children, let alone to raise them, has consequences.

Thus, for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby. In the arts and sciences, 40 is the mean age at which peak accomplishment occurs, preceded by years of intense effort mastering the discipline in question. These are precisely the years during which most women must bear children if they are to bear them at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ive highlighted the key things that I didnt say.

I maintain that women are more likely to want to look after baby, they are generally better suited to rearing infants, and a simple mechanism could be put into place to reduce the subsequent pay gap between men and women.

Id extend that mechanism to men raising children as well.

You may not have said those things. It is still implied by your argument, and that argument still has been used that way.

----------------

I hope I am not accused of being sexist if I make the trivial observation that women are "biologically built" to bear children. Taking time out to have, i.e. bear, children, let alone to raise them, has consequences.

Then the sexism is revealed through the assumption that the woman is the one who is supposed to pause her career for the kids while the man is not.

Giving men a free pass on parenting and then rewarding them financially for it actually supports sexist gender roles.

[Soixante-Retard]

Does a woman pause her career or not for the simple reason that she has to give birth? I don't see many heavily pregnant women working...

[Rainbow Crow]

It's not sexism in the workplace that causes women to have lower pay, it's gender roles in society (and to a lesser extent biology with the whole pregnancy thing) that causes lower pay for women.

What if the gender roles exist because of the biology?

[Pants-of-dog]

Does a woman pause her career or not for the simple reason that she has to give birth? I don't see many heavily pregnant women working...

No one is denying that.

Again, the issue is whether or not the man should also take time off.

[mikema63]

What if the gender roles exist because of the biology?

Women aren't any more able, biologically, to be creative or wear pink or dance or any of the rest of the shit we teach them.

[Decky]

I dunno I can think of one thing.

[Sithsaber]

i summon rei to tell me why we must embrace the social relativism and liberal world view that has disrupted our centuries long practices of keeping our women in the home. Fascist activism has always confused me.