I know it said that in this paper. I was taking issue with the larger point that attributing it to discrimination because its unexplained is a problem.
So, how can the typical way of finding discrimination be to find something unexplained and that be a good method? You are arguing against something I did not say. If you took the time to have a conversation rather than rush to a judgement and attack me, you would not be so annoyed.
So to be clear, you are saying that its typically done the way I said it was done, but, in this paper they noted that they did it slightly differently. Then, you attack me for having a problem with it as a general thing.
I like to think that discrimination in the form we are discussing here is a bad thing. It offends my sense of justice. But because most of what has brought me to a greater sense of the sense of worth in living has come at the price of what I had unconsciously assumed and unconsciously absorbed as a result of nurture within a culture, I have developed perhaps some atypical tendency to take note and question what I seem to find myself believing.
What if discrimination as we or at least I see it here isn’t wrong at all because it simple is and will always be, that men don’t discriminate against women owing to inculturation in a biased and bigoted historical upbringing, but do so as the result of genetic predisposition? What if men are biologically innately programmed in such a way they will inevitably treat women in discriminatory way for which our sense of justice can’t correct?
And since I am still deeply fascinated by the disparity I see between what I hear Jordan Peterson saying and what other people see him saying, I would like to ask another question:
Peterson says, or what I hear him saying, and I hope I can get this right, is that in those countries which have made the most progress in gender equality, the gender divide within stereotypically masculine and feminine jobs increases, not decreases as one interested in seeing more equality might hope for or expect. If so, what do you make of this purported fact that gender equality creates greater evidence of gender discrimination?
I wonder about about this because it seems to me that if reducing gender discrimination leads to women choosing inferior lines of work, maybe the problem isn’t that women aren’t inferior, only our notions of what we judge to be inferior are.
It is not typically done the way you say it is done, it is done the same way as it was done in this paper, everywhere. If you knew literally anything about social science you would know this.
So yes, I am attacking you for being unbelievably ignorant about this topic and continuing to argue your ignorance instead of shutting up and educating yourself.
So, they say its the standard, but its not the standard.
"that cannot be accounted for by these variables, and which is usually referred to as discrimination"
Why would they say that?
So basically the evidence that I'm a misogynist is that I don't like feminism. That's not evidence. The fact that I dislike a movement that again OPENLY ALLIES WITH MARXISM, wants to limit speech and even compel it, doesn't mean I hate women asserting themselves. Actually I'd like to see more women asserting themselves.
All you're doing is making assumptions about what I believe that you can't support. I don't want women back in the kitchen. I want them to leave my rights alone. Feminists aren't prepared to do that. They are not prepared to allow me due process rights in sexual assault allegations. They are not prepared to allow me to say what I want without being censored for hate speech, while of course saying hateful things about me all the time.
Give me an example of a "legitimate" feminist that has real valid concerns about women rather than attacking men's rights. Name an issue that feminists actually pursue that isn't authoritarian crap.
No feminism is not the pursuit of sexual equality at all. If it was it would not object whenever anyone tries to bring up men's rights it would not get people fired for saying that unequal representation is not necessarily sure to discrimination. It would not be against "hate speech" which in practice means spied the key does not like. They would nor be hostile to bringing up domestic and sexual violence against men. Simply dating that because I'm against these i am against equal rights for females is a rancid lie. Eben is tippy believe feminism is just opposition to sexual inequality you know i don't believe it. So being me being against feminism is proof of misogyny is rubbish.
The fact that you have to lie about my position make me sure that you know you're lying. I never said that all feminists were Marxists. I said feminism openly allies with Marxism. This is true and mobbed in this thread denied it.
No feminism is not the pursuit of sexual equality at all. If it was it would not object whenever anyone tries to bring up men's rights it would not get people fired for saying that unequal representation is not necessarily sure to discrimination. It would not be against "hate speech" which in practice means spied the key does not like. They would nor be hostile to bringing up domestic and sexual violence against men. Simply dating that because I'm against these i am against equal rights for females is a rancid lie. Even if you believe feminism is just opposition to sexual inequality you know i don't believe it. So being me being against feminism is proof of misogyny is rubbish.
The fact that you have to lie about my position make me sure that you know you're lying. I never said that all feminists were Marxists. I said feminism openly allies with Marxism. This is true and nobody in this thread denied it.
Notice how you said "women" were generally in favor of free speech not feminists. That's because you know feminists have consistently been against free speed. Anita Sakeesian for instance went before the UN to protest "harassment" which for her literally means being called a liar. Notice how you're defending feminists against someone who accused them off baking compelled speech and your not saying that's not typical of feminism, because it is. Feminists are pushing hate speech legislation that would punish people for saying things they don't like. Note that it's not about preventing "bullying" or "threats of violence" either. Threats of violence are already illegal and some of those who complain about "harassment" and want the "harassers" punished have more power than the "harassers". They are the bullies. i am not against people suffering consequences for being a dick. In fact I wish it would happen more often so people like you would learn to shut your lying mouths. They want people arrested for offending people. They want to be able to have someone say "X is true." with no threat, no violence, no hint of danger. This is their expressed preference. You can say I'm wrong about what feminists believe all you want, this is what they are arguing for. And if you know a time where having one class of people be able to punish another for offending them ended well tell me.
Also with due process you said women not feminists, fortunate as one of your examples of feminists with valid agendas is Julie Lalonde. This is the woman who said that an acquittal sent the anti-sexual-violence movement back 50 years. Feminists are trying to get cops to not write down things rape "victims" say that contradicts their initial story. That's a blatant concealment of exculpatory evidence. When Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty they were livid, because he used evidence that proved his accusers were lying. They don't want to allow that. Jessica Valenti is STILL mad that the Duke Lacrosse players got off on the threadbare excuse that they LITERALLY NEVER TOUCHED THE VICTIM. Feminism isn't against sexual violence, it's against women's accusations being questioned.
Oh and wanting more women in tech isn't an equality issue. They have just as much right to apply as men. They just don't. You do not have a right to a certain number of your demographic in a role and to think that's even desirable is insane. This is what we're talking about with the "murderous equality doctrine", the idea that they have a right to power, whether they have the drive or talent or not. And they will continue to increase their control until it becomes totalitarian because that's the only way they can cover up that they're morally bankrupt and don't deserve their jobs.
Oh and BTW the wage gap was shown to be a myth DECADES ago.
ReplyForward
Assuming you are not asking for work based on my theorizing, which is just that and for which I have no supportive studies, but you refer to what I attributed to Peterson, I think it's a fair question. I can see if I can find that info for you but I can't say I really am very knowledgeable about how to do so. I think I remember Peterson claiming it has been known for 25 years or so and is one of the most well established facts social science has produced. Hearsay, I know. I will see what I can find.I would need to see the work that's based on so I can't say? I certainly wouldn't take Peterson's word for it considering his irrational hatred of equality movements.
To be clear, you just linked a bunch of studies on the differences for the wages of men and women. Just looking at the first study, "The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of European graduates", it looks like its just explaining the non sexist reasons for the differences in wages.
Let me show you the most important part of that article.
The way they also define discrimination is by saying if they cant explain it, its discrimination.
That seems silly to include to back up your argument no?
I would need to see the work that's based on so I can't say? I certainly wouldn't take Peterson's word for it considering his irrational hatred of equality movements.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-good-the-gender-gap-grows/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/does-gender-equality-result-in-fewer-female-stem-grads
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/pol...dal-part-one-scandinavia-and-part-two-canada/
Hope this helps. Seems like there are many other links
First, we should always aim to make a change for the better. Even if 99% of the world is out of our control, we should aim to change the other 1% instead of justifying our bad situation on the back of the other 99%.What if men are biologically innately programmed in such a way they will inevitably treat women in discriminatory way for which our sense of justice can’t correct?...
The most compelling arguments here come from the camp that studies eudaimonia - whole life happiness - and find that, in fact, in countries like Denmark, which see a widening gap in gender participation but offer what is needed to level the playing field for women, women and men are nearly on par and both are near the top in the world indexes. You also see, despite disparity in participation rates, a MUCH higher rate of presence of women at the very top of organizations.I wonder about about this because it seems to me that if reducing gender discrimination leads to women choosing inferior lines of work, maybe the problem isn’t that women aren’t inferior, only our notions of what we judge to be inferior are.
The issues I have with gender disparities are primarily that within the same field and in the same jobs women are often paid less.
No, but I respect why you think it is.
First, citations 1-8 DO back up the individual arguments I made; look at them for everything but the wage gap.
Second, citations 9-108 are a listing of the 99 most cited articles from the past decade that fail to 'debunk' the wage gap. Science is NOT about affirmative arguments "there is a wage gap" it's about trying to debunk arguments "i can't explain this without a wage gap, though I try." As such, I was countering the person claiming that the wage gap has been debunked by pointing to many well regarded studies from the last decade.
Third, from my understanding of why you think this counters my point, you must think that I'm arguing that individual employers are engaged in systematic, wide spread, discrimination. I am not. I am arguing that when there is systematic wide spread disparities of outcomes, and those looking for alternative explanations fail to find them, then it is a red flag indicating that we should look at the social system that produced the output. My assumption here is "every system has the perfect design for the outcomes it gets." However, and I want to be clear, this does NOT mean that the social system was intentionally designed that way. But just because it is 'natural' doesn't make it good. In fact this may be perfectly natural and undermine our performance as a society by hurting the ability of able women to add to it.
No, but I respect why you think it is.
First, citations 1-8 DO back up the individual arguments I made; look at them for everything but the wage gap.
Second, citations 9-108 are a listing of the 99 most cited articles from the past decade that fail to 'debunk' the wage gap. Science is NOT about affirmative arguments "there is a wage gap" it's about trying to debunk arguments "i can't explain this without a wage gap, though I try." As such, I was countering the person claiming that the wage gap has been debunked by pointing to many well regarded studies from the last decade.
Third, from my understanding of why you think this counters my point, you must think that I'm arguing that individual employers are engaged in systematic, wide spread, discrimination. I am not. I am arguing that when there is systematic wide spread disparities of outcomes, and those looking for alternative explanations fail to find them, then it is a red flag indicating that we should look at the social system that produced the output. My assumption here is "every system has the perfect design for the outcomes it gets." However, and I want to be clear, this does NOT mean that the social system was intentionally designed that way. But just because it is 'natural' doesn't make it good. In fact this may be perfectly natural and undermine our performance as a society by hurting the ability of able women to add to it.
As soon as somebody defines a good they create an evil to which they stand in opposition. This is the ground on which bigotry thrives, to work for the good in the assumption that one can do no wrong because of one's intentions. This is also the place where the need for rationalizations materialize, when methodology must never be seen as evil.
The debate as I see it is this. If the desire for equality of opportunity creates an demand for equality of outcome based on any form of identity or self identification as a group or class, etc., and that equality has been designated as the good when in fact it is in contradistinction to any equality that in freedom would be sought by that identity, the only thing that can achieve such an unnatural goal would be authoritarian in nature, and we have seen where that leads.
So, if women choosing to take jobs that pay less per hour worked, would you call that discrimination? If your point is that women get paid less for things like less hours worked, career choices, then yes there is a gap. Typically, when people talk about the wage gap, they are talking about women getting paid less for equal work.
So rather than put words in your mouth, let me ask that first.
The answer to both of you, as far as I see it, is that unequal outcomes are not inherently evil. They are red flags. When those red flags no longer exist in places that deal with them in ways suggested by those seeking fair treatment, it is a good indication that the red flags can and should be addressed.
Just to expose starting thoughts on the subject:
1) No country is perfect, so just because a flag isn't fixed doesn't mean it can't be, and
2) Some flags shouldn't be fixed because people like it that way, but
3) Since we have a LONG LONG LONG history of justifying the presence of unequal outcomes, the probability that we've finally, truly, come up against a red flag that is a 'choice' or 'optimal' or otherwise shouldn't be fixed is much much much lower than the probability that we're just trying to make ourselves feel good about our existing system.
The idea space you are aiming at exist – women being happier with unequal outcomes – as per 2, but so many people over history have aimed at that idea space as a justification for the highly sub-optimal present context that it’s truly hubris to believe that “this time we have it right.”
I think American culture is sick and that the people who best adapt to being sick want to maintain that sick system. In order to change the system would require a predominance of less sick people to create a less sick system which would then produce less sick people. However, the sicker it gets the more the most sick will want to make it sicker so that the sicker it becomes the more sick people there will be. Only the individual can escape from this machine, it seems to me.First, we should always aim to make a change for the better. Even if 99% of the world is out of our control, we should aim to change the other 1% instead of justifying our bad situation on the back of the other 99%.
The most compelling arguments here come from the camp that studies eudaimonia - whole life happiness - and find that, in fact, in countries like Denmark, which see a widening gap in gender participation but offer what is needed to level the playing field for women, women and men are nearly on par and both are near the top in the world indexes. You also see, despite disparity in participation rates, a MUCH higher rate of presence of women at the very top of organizations.
However, in the US, this is not the case. The daily labor socially expected of women harms their reported eudaimonia. Now this is the most recent, and interesting, work on the subject. So unlike the gender gap, which is as real as you can get in science, what we're talking about here is highly speculative/unstable/new and should be taken as just that - initial conjectures.
Unfortunately, my ethics as someone studying this preclude my taking the strong stance that is required to rally folks... but that's just the best we can do as folks dedicated to a scientific method.
c.f.
Wu, J., & Connerley, M. L. (2016). Feminist Eudaimonia: A Research Direction. In Handbook on Well-Being of Working Women (pp. 807-810). Springer, Dordrecht.
One way to remedy that would be to make pay for the types of jobs women prefer equal to the pay of jobs that men prefer, that the pay gap if real, excluding different pay for the same job which really does seem like discrimination and assuming it is real, In short, what may be happening is that we do not pay according to a real standard of value but an artificial and discriminatory one. Another way to do that would be to ensure that the quality of life for people of different incomes is approximately equal.Then the next question is why do you see the outcomes given what we do know as a red flag? So, in terms of employer to employee relationships, almost all of the differences in wages are choice or non-employer related. Given that, it sure points to either the issue being non work related, and or choice being the issue.
Also, its not that women should be happy/unhappy with unequal outcomes, because from the looks of what we see, its not unequal. What seems to be happening is that gender differences drive people to make different choices. Women choose to follow careers paths and choices that often pay less than men. It does not look like they are being forced to do this, but, even if they were, its not an issue of structural problems of employment. If a man were to make the same choices, he would have the same outcome. What is happening looks to be that men and women make different choices.
One way to remedy that would be to make pay for the types of jobs women prefer equal to the pay of jobs that men prefer, that the pay gap if real, excluding different pay for the same job which really does seem like discrimination and assuming it is real, In short, what may be happening is that we do not pay according to a real standard of value but an artificial and discriminatory one. Another way to do that would be to ensure that the quality of life for people of different incomes is approximately equal.
I have no problem with your idealism. My problem is with ideologies of cure. Are we going to become authoritarian in our methodology of cure. We have a long long history of redressing one evil with another that may be even worse. I am not very pleased with your notion that Marxism has somehow changed. It seems to be to be very much based on the notion of an oppressor and victims. It's a clarion call to turn my personal misery into misery for somebody else who deserves it more than I do. Aside from the fact that life is full of misery and suffering with death at the end, I see the world as a reflection of my own personal inner landscape. I create my own misery by virtue of the assumptions I make as to the nature of reality. Very few people see this in my opinion and this is why, I also believe, all revolutions are fought between polar opposite negative authoritarian ideologies. The two poles of Stockholm Syndrome at war with each other. Truth is always a third way, a collapse of paradox in fuller understanding.The answer to both of you, as far as I see it, is that unequal outcomes are not inherently evil. They are red flags. When those red flags no longer exist in places that deal with them in ways suggested by those seeking fair treatment, it is a good indication that the red flags can and should be addressed.
Just to expose starting thoughts on the subject:
1) No country is perfect, so just because a flag isn't fixed doesn't mean it can't be, and
2) Some flags shouldn't be fixed because people like it that way, but
3) Since we have a LONG LONG LONG history of justifying the presence of unequal outcomes, the probability that we've finally, truly, come up against a red flag that is a 'choice' or 'optimal' or otherwise shouldn't be fixed is much much much lower than the probability that we're just trying to make ourselves feel good about our existing system.
The idea space you are aiming at exist – women being happier with unequal outcomes – as per 2, but so many people over history have aimed at that idea space as a justification for the highly sub-optimal present context that it’s truly hubris to believe that “this time we have it right.”
One way to remedy that would be to make pay for the types of jobs women prefer equal to the pay of jobs that men prefer, that the pay gap if real, excluding different pay for the same job which really does seem like discrimination and assuming it is real, In short, what may be happening is that we do not pay according to a real standard of value but an artificial and discriminatory one. Another way to do that would be to ensure that the quality of life for people of different incomes is approximately equal.
So, if women choosing to take jobs that pay less per hour worked, would you call that discrimination? If your point is that women get paid less for things like less hours worked, career choices, then yes there is a gap. Typically, when people talk about the wage gap, they are talking about women getting paid less for equal work.
So rather than put words in your mouth, let me ask that first.
Then the next question is why do you see the outcomes given what we do know as a red flag? So, in terms of employer to employee relationships, almost all of the differences in wages are choice or non-employer related. Given that, it sure points to either the issue being non work related, and or choice being the issue.
Also, its not that women should be happy/unhappy with unequal outcomes, because from the looks of what we see, its not unequal. What seems to be happening is that gender differences drive people to make different choices. Women choose to follow careers paths and choices that often pay less than men. It does not look like they are being forced to do this, but, even if they were, its not an issue of structural problems of employment. If a man were to make the same choices, he would have the same outcome. What is happening looks to be that men and women make different choices.
I have no problem with your idealism. My problem is with ideologies of cure. Are we going to become authoritarian in our methodology of cure. We have a long long history of redressing one evil with another that may be even worse. I am not very pleased with your notion that Marxism has somehow changed. It seems to be to be very much based on the notion of an oppressor and victims. It's a clarion call to turn my personal misery into misery for somebody else who deserves it more than I do. Aside from the fact that life is full of misery and suffering with death at the end, I see the world as a reflection of my own personal inner landscape. I create my own misery by virtue of the assumptions I make as to the nature of reality. Very few people see this in my opinion and this is why, I also believe, all revolutions are fought between polar opposite negative authoritarian ideologies. The two poles of Stockholm Syndrome at war with each other. Truth is always a third way, a collapse of paradox in fuller understanding.
Why would you think that women would choose to take jobs that pay less than men, given free choice in the matter?