|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted August 18, 2014 04:58 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:04, 18 Aug 2014.
|
jemo said:
artu.. negotiation of salary is part of how much salary you will get. Seriously, haven't you been promoted before?
Even in the interview process, you negotiate for your salary.
This is impossible. You don't want to address it other than calling it stupid.
Any intelligent, open-minded person can see through that.
Oh boy, you are so clueless it actually amazes me. You cant understand you are wrong, because you don't comprehend WHY you are wrong. Negotiation may or may not be an important part of the salary depending on the circumstances. That's not important though. When I said:
Quote:
you will again believe "what if all the men negotiated better" is a valid answer to that
it should have at least given you the hint that the problem is not the importance of negotiation itself but the double standard you arbitrarily assume, when it comes to it. But I guess, being the "open-minded, intelligent person" you are, that simple reasoning was too low for your potential and your brain was just overqualified to grasp it:
Negotiation is a skill based on understanding the person you are negotiating with, his bluffs, what he will be willing to give up etc. It is a skill requiring intelligence, observation and empathy. These are not some brawn based "manly" skills or conditions requiring testosterone-driven-rage kind of rivalry. On the contrary, keeping it cool and being patient will help enormously. There is no justifiable reason or research to assume men can negotiate better than women due to biological reasons and even if you walk through any street bazaar, you will see both genders are very capable of the job. Now, since all the conditions regarding background and work period etc are the same in our statistics, there is no educational or experience based upper-hand, men got either, which only leaves out two possibilities: By some incredible coincidence and through out all these years, it was all male individuals who were able to negotiate better somehow OR a social double standard rooted for hundreds of years still has some effect. The first miraculous possibility you seem to be holding onto does not explain why this gap keeps narrowing down as the social norms change, though, so the line of coincidences become even more miraculous! You assume men are better then women at something arbitrarily, to arrive at a conclusion you so want to arrive at. That IS what sexism itself is, anyway. The problem is you are so sunk in it, you can not even realize it's sexism. So basically, what you foolishly managed to do is trying to prove sexism MAY NOT be the cause of an economical inequality, by applying to sexism FOR CERTAIN. Hats off to Jemo once again, the brilliant mastermind and the rise of hope for oppressed men all over the world...
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 06:05 AM |
|
|
Thank you artu. I appreciate you finally answered my challenge in a civil, intelligent manner. Partially at least.
Now that I have your attention, let me make my point as clear as I can possibly can.
First of all, I would admit the pay gap IF the research it conducted lists all the possible factors and it's clearly pointed out that the reason behind it is discrimination.
It's just like making a thesis. You need to defend your thesis right? If you can't defend it properly, then your thesis isn't proven. Therefore, it's not correct. You can't just put "etc.." on a research, you have to list every possible factor. Let me quote it...
Pay Gap Research said:
The report controls for occupation, major, hours worked, parenthood, and many other factors to reveal that college-educated women working full time were paid an unexplained 7% less than their male counterparts were paid one year after graduation.
Pay Gap Research
These are the factors they didn't list:
1. Experience - internship, previous work, etc.
2. What are your accomplishments in the job - say.. an employee is doing something not even part of his job description. He helps programmers develop computer systems. He helps analyze data. He mentors lower-level employees on what they did wrong on their job. Would it be fair if a co-worker who didn't do anything else except what she's there for be paid the same as him?
3. Negotiation of Salaries - I understand that there is no difference between the genders when it comes to negotiating salaries and you've clearly explained that and I appreciate you did that. However, the problem may not lie in the skills in negotiation. It may lie in aggression in negotiating salaries. It's not impossible that more men happened to negotiate salaries more aggressively than women. I am NOT saying either gender is better, I'm saying you have the choice to negotiate salaries.
Again, these are all speculations, just like the pay gap itself is a speculation. However, this is a much more ideal mindset than believing discrimination right away. Discrimination would exist if it is proven. Innocent until proven guilty artu, innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 06:33 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:34, 18 Aug 2014.
|
What previous work, experience etc difference??? That is why they specifically mention one year after graduation, is there a significant amount of difference between the number of male interns and female interns, so that we can conclude females were less likely to have a past as an intern first, no. And even if all these things weren't so, why does the pay gap narrow down over decades when the only thing that changes in this equation is the level of discrimination?
And what makes you think negotiating aggressively is always the better choice of negotiation? You just make these things up and assume they will always be in advantage of men? Why do you assume that?
Enough of this Jemo. You are unable to make sense. Stop making me explain the obvious: Why you don't make sense.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:44 AM |
|
|
I'll probably getting in a blood frenzy, should I have to read again this "men died for their right to vote" BULLsnowE. Apart from the minor fact that historically there is no connection - even if it WAS true, wouldn't that be even more BULLsnowE? Just think about the fact that women have died from the onset of time just BIRTHING the little would be freedom fighters, not to mention the pain and so on.
Then I cursorily read this little gem of a point that salaries are NEGOTIATED. Really?
Assuming it was so universally, what were the implications? That women suck in negotiations? Or that maybe a significantly lower salary must be accepted because otherwise a man applying for the job will get it? Everyone's guess, but you don't need to be a genius to see the connections.
Waste of time to write anything, though.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 05:04 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker
Now that I have this Pay Gap conversation with artu, this somehow gave me a new perspective. Me connecting the draft with the rights to vote even though there is no direct evidence to it is like artu connecting the pay gap with discrimination. Except in the former's case, men were given very little choice. Poor and middle class men, which is the vast majority were given no choice at all. I make it a point that I shouldn't be a hypocrite as much as I can (since that is what I majorly criticize feminists for).
Forgive me, the phrase shouldn't be "men paid their rights to vote with blood". Still, men need to register for Selective Service or the draft (back in the day), a burden women don't need to face. And the punishment for not registering for Selective Service is quite heavy. Every benefit men gain in Selective Service, women have it for free. It's handed to women on a silver platter while men need to earn it.
https://www.sss.gov/fswomen.htm
Also, about the negotiation of salaries, I suggest you read my last post before replying.
@artu
That's not what I meant artu. What I meant was negotiating your salary in the most effective manner. Just because both groups are good at selling doesn't mean both of them are using it (or using it effectively). Maybe some don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating salaries.
Also, if you read beyond that, the article also included women at the age of 35. It considered people beyond one year after graduation. But since you're saying we must focus on people one year after graduation, ok, I'll respect your wishes.
Internship does matter and so does how you construct your resume and how you impress your interviewers during the interview process.
How well did you impress your employer to earn a bigger raise (which is what my number 2 argument is all about, which you seem to ignore). Apparently, none of those were listed in the article. And remember, we are talking about 7%.
I would be very interested to see the formula this article used though. The pay gap I know computed for the average income of men and the average income of women, then compared. This one seems to follow a different approach. It would make this article more credible if we have more information on it.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 05:11 PM |
|
|
any and all information can be, and most likely HAS, been tampered with. there's nearly endless power in information-manipulation... how many wars, battles, fights, changes, etc...
information-manipulation has shaped the whole world.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 05:35 PM |
|
|
aJeremiahEmo said:
@Smithey
1. I'm delusional for thinking feminists would hunt me down if I tell me where I live? Jeez, Smithey, first of all, why would you ask where I live in the first place? Second, haven't you heard of Erin Pizzey? Adria Richards called a man's employer asking to fire him for telling jokes in a private conversation not in the office that doesn't even involve her. A woman researched where a man was working for prank calling her.
Not only delusional, but also suffering from a severe form of paranoia and self importance issues...
To think that by disclosing what country you're from you're placing yourself in danger, is just sad, I suggest seeing a shrink asap coz thats the most retarded thing I've heard in my life.
I cant even fathom the state of mind you must be in to consider the idea of someone spending vast resources, flying to another country, going through 100 cities looking for an Asian dude in his twenties  Asian dude whos name we dont have who's picture we dont have who's city we dont know and of whom we only know that he's Asian in his twenties coz he said so...
Dude, you've got serious issues, for real.
FYI, the moment you log into hc, your IP shows, basically showing which country you're from, just a thought...
Asking where you live gives me insight/ability to answer:
I live in Spain - look here, bro, in Spain there are race layers, black dudes are reduced to certain jobs coz of their color, there is no equality in Spain
I live in China - Look here, bro, in China not only is there a huge discrimination against colored people but furthermore against people from certain regions as they are considered inferiors, there is no equality in your country.
I live in whatever - Look here, bro in whatever blah blah blah..
Thats how one can use your location to explain certain things by speaking of things you might be familiar with, but logic is not something one should use on you as in all seriousness I havent encountered a person so detached from reality in a long time.
Walls you have built around you are astonishing, things you have convinced yourself of are mind blowing, if I were to mimic your reason, this is what I would say:
I'm sorry, I cant argue with you anymore, as since you dont agree with my views, you must be a lizard race, and I talk only to humans, all your racist feminist crap doesnt really interest me as I see you for who you are and you and your lizard bros will never claim our world as your own..
JEmo reason 1on1, for ya...
Quote:
And don't even start with me on the Asian part. When a woman talks about how a man shouldn't talk about women's issues because he's not a woman, it's ok. When an Asian guy talks about his experiences, no, he's delusional. WTF?!!!
2. Your 40% to 2% whites vs minorities doesn't explain anything.
Like I said, equal opportunity does not necessarily mean equal results. I am all for equal opportunity. If you want equal results, go for communism. There is NO law that prevents minorities/women to succeed. Unless you have a research that clearly states discrimination on any group and it considers all the factors, there is NO discrimination in the fortune 500.
3. I'm not saying women won't get prosecuted, I'm saying women have it easier. I'm sorry, I'm not even gonna soften that phrase.
One example. I've already brought this up with citations and Steyn agreed with me. The law punishes anyone who is bigger when it comes to domestic violence. Say, if a woman hits you, you hit back, you're bigger, you're thrown to jail. Since men are generally bigger, it's discrimination towards men.
LOL, just can't take you seriously anymore.. Use google, you'll find scientific researches on those subjects, enrich your empty world a little bit
Peace
P.S. ran your ip address, found three butchy feminist lesbians with huge strapons and we're coming for you, be very scared tinfoil man 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 06:16 PM |
|
|
The article and the statistics are not from a site with an agenda, we have no special reason to suspect their authenticity by source, the results are not unexpected or mysterious, we have no reason to suspect their authenticity by rational skepticism either. If you are going to suspect every statistic and info brought to you by the government, you also don't know the population of your country or how many schools you have in your country. And about gender discrimination, you will be only limited in your personal observations which wont mean squad for an overall perspective of the country. Basically, it's saying "we cant know anything about the society and its patterns because we cant ask them one by one."
@Jemo: The seventh percent gap addresses the period that is one year after the graduation, not the rest, with the rest the gap may even go higher. So your objection is pointless. And nobody said internship has no importance at all. You, once again, haven't understood what was objected in your argument and repeated the same non-sense. I am not a magician, I can't make you comprehend what you are unable to comprehend, as I said before, I cant teach a pelican to play the piano either. All of your posts will be strictly ignored from now on. Do not address me in them. Don't ask questions you when you already have your wishful thinking answer to them. I don't know what else to say to make you realize, I do not take your opinion seriously and I do not estimate that you have the capacity to understand the counter ones.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 06:59 PM |
|
|
artu said:
The article and the statistics are not from a site with an agenda, we have no special reason to suspect their authenticity by source, the results are not unexpected or mysterious, we have no reason to suspect their authenticity by rational skepticism either. If you are going to suspect every statistic and info brought to you by the government, you also don't know the population of your country or how many schools you have in your country. And about gender discrimination, you will be only limited in your personal observations which wont mean squad for an overall perspective of the country. Basically, it's saying "we cant know anything about the society and its patterns because we cant ask them one by one."
what difference does it make what the source is? there isn't anything in my post arguing about ANY specific source. that should be easily apparent.
(i had started a long post here, explaining my reasoning behind my beliefs regarding information and how easily it can be manipulated; but i deleted it 4 paragraphs in. it doesn't matter what i say on the subject; i will just be argued with incessantly anyway.)
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 07:11 PM |
|
|
|
That's apparent and as I already mentioned that is THE problem. If you have a valid reason to doubt a specific data or information, you go "I dont trust that information because the site is bogus/the results are way too absurd/the poll company is owned by the group which scores higher/there has been an investigation/ the questions are flawed etc etc..." Saying all statistics are unreliable by default without presenting a justifiable reason for the statistic at hand is, saying ALL statistics we ever read about anything have zero credibility, which is saying we sociologically know nothing about the world. If that is what you believe in, your stance in any social matter should be complete silence, accordingly.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 07:30 PM |
|
|
|
artu, artu, artu... sheesh. like i said, i was going to explain myself, but i'm not going to bother. even IF i went through all the rigamarole of explaining my very justified belief in this matter, you would just miss my point(even if i spelled it out for you, which i've done many very tedious and boring times), and continue to argue, and argue, and argue. you will never understand where i am coming from, so let's drop it, ok? we are obviously of two different minds. i don't hold that against you. don't use your incapability of understanding ME, as some kind of half-assed insult. your intellect should steer you clear of such childishness in a more serious debate.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 07:44 PM |
|
|
|
Where is this half-assed insult? The obvious result of your position is to trust no statistics at all. You are very mistaken that IF I had understood, I would reply differently. I find your position wrong BECAUSE I understand it. This presumption of "if people had understood me, they'd know I'm right" is baseless. You are not a puzzle, when people disagree, it is because they understand you perfectly well: Your standards of "reasonable doubt" are not... reasonable. But that would be hard for you to realize, since you seriously contemplate Jack Nicholson may have murdered Heath Ledger because he pulled a better Joker.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 07:52 PM |
|
|
There's a difference between taking all statistics with a pinch of salt, and holding them to be irrefutable evidence.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:01 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Where is this half-assed insult? The obvious result of your position is to trust no statistics at all. You are very mistaken that IF I had understood, I would reply differently. I find your position wrong BECAUSE I understand it. This presumption of "if people had understood me, they'd know I'm right" is baseless. You are not a puzzle, when people disagree, it is because they understand you perfectly well: Your standards of "reasonable doubt" are not... reasonable. But that would be hard for you to realize, since you seriously contemplate Jack Nicholson may have murdered Heath Ledger because he pulled a better Joker.
half-assed insult:
artu said:
your stance in any social matter should be complete silence, accordingly.
i'll spell it out for you(via translating), even though i don't believe in any way, shape, or form that you are oblivious to this being an insult:
translation of "your stance in any social matter should be complete silence, accordingly"
is
"you lack the capabilities to carry on a conversation in a social matter, therefore you should keep your mouth shut. i think this suits you."
artu, if you understood my stance on statistics, and anything regarded as free-to-the-public information, you would see it as entirely logical. instead, you do not understand, because you lack the capabilities to. what you do, in lieu of understanding anyone, is INSULT them(again, and again, and again).
what i seriously contemplate, is your LACK of understanding of the ego of mr. nicholson, regarding the reasoning behind heath ledger's death. but you see only what you are told through "informational" media. i am not a "credited" source, therefore you think i'm insane for mentioning what i believe to be true.
notice how those two words are in quotation marks, artu. stare at the words in those quotation marks, and for the love of god, let it sink in, that information is EASILY subject to alteration or mistake, for MANY different reasons.
i'll read what you have to say again, when you drop that pompous attitude of yours, and resonate a little(just a LITTLE) understanding.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:01 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:08, 18 Aug 2014.
|
@Tsar
Depends on the context, the statistics is not about something abstract or secretive. It's about salaries that are taxed and controlled by the government.
@Fred.
Actually, it is very clear that the part you ripped from my sentence comes to that conclusion because of your OWN argument and the sentence in its full context makes that very clear. Since you label that as an insult, I'll be leaving you to your paranoia once again. I dont have time to start listening to you victimizing yourself out of nothing, one more time.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:05 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Depends on the context, the statistics is not about something abstract or secretive. It's about salaries that are taxed and controlled by the government.
since you supplied yourself with a key word; i highlighted it for you, for better assimilation. focus, artu. i know you can do this. you have the intellect, ffs.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:10 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
artu said:
Depends on the context, the statistics is not about something abstract or secretive. It's about salaries that are taxed and controlled by the government.
since you supplied yourself with a key word; i highlighted it for you, for better assimilation. focus, artu. i know you can do this. you have the intellect, ffs.
Yes, the feminists inside the government has an agenda to show women salaries 7 percent lower although they are not, just because they are able to control (as in inspect) the salaries.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:15 PM |
|
|
do you ever SUSPECT that information you are given by a "credited" source, is either mistaken, or a flat-out lie?
note, that i am not saying, that the information presented in this discussion IS mistaken, OR a lie.
what i want to know is, do you ever even consider the POSSIBILITY that statistical information(just sticking with statistics, now) COULD be faulty, or DOWNRIGHT misleading?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:19 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, if I have a valid reason to. I don't bury myself in a political mysticism, where every piece of statistical information spelled out is a bunch of lies by default, though.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:27 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Yes, if I have a valid reason to. I don't bury myself in a political mysticism, where every piece of statistical information spelled out is a bunch of lies by default, though.
i'm not buried in anything, artu. i am just very, very slow to believe anything to be touted as "information", when it comes to something that could be used to sway minds in favor of a cause.
especially then. the more at stake, the less i believe the information being presented. call it a rule. it tends to be correct in assumption.
there is much more in play, at any given time, for any given reason, artu, than most people know about.
the "free" information, is usually "free" for a very good reason.
take espionage, for instance. do you think edward snowden was playing with information that was "free to the public"? why or why not?
|
| |
|
|
