Since we're talking about the injustice of the gender wage gap, can we discuss why female wimbledon players get paid substantially more than their male counterparts?
Oh, Panda. Don't forget:
Michelle Yeoh
Cynthia Rothrock
Michelle Rodriguez
Scarlett Johansson
*asston of Asian martial artists*
and Angelina Jolie
just to name a few no-namers. Y'know.
This is the beginning of a three part series about the wage gap. It covers these topics:
• Choices of work made by men and women
• Motherhood and pay
• Emergency services and the military
• The pay gap and womens vote
• Should a man who can carry 2 bricks be paid more than a woman who can only carry 1 brick?
• Which sex is more motivated to earn more?
• Can a man choose not to work? Can a woman?
• Women living in a climate of fear
• The suppression of men's views
• Discrimination in Pension rights for men and women
Lookie what I found. Lots of reading, if anything just read the conclusion for the tl;dr:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240.pdf
it has all it's references at the bottom and everything. Mazmaz, I would encourage you *not* to read it because I'm empathetic and I know your blood pressure will go up. Although, you'll just dismiss everything in it anyways so do whatever you want to do. Kisses
When you make a purchase, your decision to make the purchase is based on wether the particular item is worth it to you.
Accepting salary at a job is the same kind of economic decision. Is your time worth what they are offering? If not then TELL THEM. If an agreement can't be reached then find another opportunity.
There is no need for a third party to come in and get involved.
Saying something is biased without specific evidence is about as valid as saying someone is being extremist rather than disprove their argument, or even worse to accuse them of privilege.
Perhaps biased isn't the proper word. Let me take some time to try and put into words how I felt about the video. At the moment it's hard to explain, I just felt it had an undertone of trying to manipulate the feelings of the viewer to help gain additional support for their presentation.
I contributed to an article about this roughly 6yrs back, going from memory, Department of Labor statistics basically indicated performance based pay would result in a 30~% decrease in women's wages.
When you measure performance against wage it was clear that women actually get paid significantly more per unit of productivity than men do, which at the time I found interesting because very few people want to approach that argument.
This would be my naivety showing, but in that situation, women would still be getting paid the same base salary as men. Any bonuses are based off performance and, to me, should not be under scrutiny because if they are then being paid less, it's the employees fault.
That's just my uneducated view though. I'm sure it's not something that simple, or easy, or the right thing to do.
More or less accurate. I support the idea of men and women getting paid equally for the same work, I think it's good for society as a whole, but from the perspective of the employer, statistics bared out that you're not getting equal work for your pay.
Note, the cause of the gap was unknown(at the time), statistics included all labor not just manual. So it wasn't well established it the gap in productivity was physiological(women just can't physically lift as many bricks) or cultural(women don't try to lift as many bricks). Though the gap still being present factoring in office work tends to suggest the later, though that's by no means a strong relationship.
If anyone can find information on that Canadian office work/construction thing I'd love to read it.
There has to be something more recent than the stuff shown in that one 2009 study and other things done in that two year time span. I'm trying to grasp the bigger picture, but I only have two sides to look at. A wife that just quotes the 77 cent/dollar stat at me over and over and the opposition who just quotes that one 2009 study over and over. It feels like both sides of the argument are anti-vaxxers desperately clinging to their anecdotal single piece of evidence.
That 2009 study was a giant, comprehensive overview of the whole situation. It's a 95 page report. The 77 cent people have a couple cherry picked ways of looking at a very narrow set of numbers. There is no comparison at all.
An argument having two sides doesn't make both sides have equal merit.
Let's take this in a different direction.
So a lawmaker, Republican Vito Barbieri, who is on the board of a "crisis pregnancy center" (those places that generally aren't there for women's health but more to convince you to have the baby at all costs - actual clinics are not allowed to use the word "crisis") wants women to be able to see the state of their pregnancy ... by swallowing a camera. Everyone kindly explained to him that the uterus is not connected in any way to the esophagus, stomach, intestines, or anus.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...ks-anatomy-101
Le sigh. These are the type of people who want to regulate what I can do with my body.
Oh god, I think a certain politician has been on the fetish side of youtube.
Are people not reading this article? Ive seen it pop up a lot, and while I disagree with all of this guys views, what he was saying was pretty obvious.
Person arguing with him tried to use the coloscopy cam as an example. He pointed out why that example was dumb as shit. That's all.For his part, Barbieri told the Spokesman-Review late yesterday, “[Dr. Julie Madsen] made the point that you could swallow a camera and from thousands of miles away, you could detect the state of that colonoscopy…. My question was then, are you saying that you can swallow a camera and get the same results? Which is of course rhetorical. But she responded that of course you can’t swallow a pill and have it end up in your vagina. So my point was made.”