kuruman,

I'm not talking about the economist. I'm talking about your entire perception--you're thoughts are basically dictated by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (your education argument) and the Independent Women's Forum (this wage gap argument).

Basically, you're behaving like Christina Hoff Sommer's mouthpiece.

My question is...why?

kuruman:

Merc:

After mulling over your obtuse post again, I'm wondering if you are actually trying to discuss this issue. If so, rather than your usual utterly pointless critique, could you please explain why you think the information provided is not pertinent to the broader issue of the gender wage gap.

You can't possibly do it, but I would like to see you give it a shot.

Haven't you learned? She is NOT willing to actually "discuss" the issue. The fray is filled to overflowing with women posters who are not willing to discuss the issue--if discussion means amenable to learning something new or gaining a new perspective or, changing one's mind.

Wage gap figures are a JOKE (and, GOD, it's almost too boring to even have to restate it): Full-time men and women employess work very different jobs, and work very different hours; to use an average compensation under those terms, notice that women make less, and then use that as evidence of DISCRIMINATION...is SO logically and statistically bankrupt that one can KNOW almost immediately that no discrimination exists--else why use such a terribly inaccurate way to show it?

There are direct ways to show the existence and extent of discrimination if one really chose to do so: Sham employee prospects and anonymous surveys. These are used all the time in sociological studies, and give DIRECT evidence of how people are acting in the world (rather than inferential evidence from muddy statistical methods).

Why haven't feminist sociologists simply ASKED corporate males if they are discriminating? It works for finding out the sex lives and drug use of school children; what percentage of spouses cheat in their marriage...and any and all other "embarrassing" personal data. I think if it were applied to this case the results would be very disappointing to feminists--and they'd say the men were lying (but are, at other times, happy to tell about their drug use or whether they cheat on their spouses).

StevieN and kuruman (here you are...together again....)

Ok, so let me get this straight. Basically, you're saying:

1. The wage gap does not exist.

2. Gender discrimination in the work place does not exist.

"The main point of the logic, and I think it is absolutely logical, is that you cannot bandy about statistics like wage gaps and conclude that discrimination is the cause."

Yeah and my counterargument is that that cuts both way. You can't throw out some stats and claim it doesn't exist either. I am reasonably certain that neither of us is a qualified statitician. Given that, I'm not sure we can even debate the merits of either paragraph. Which makes this one a draw. See you next time.

The graph also does not discuss industry, geography, or population (number of African America women with professional degrees versus White women with professional degrees).

In short, that statistic really says nothing, let alone the ridiculous conclusions that the author of the article comes to. Nor does it say anything substantial about gender and the wage gap.

Why is this relevant again?

mercadia,

I say neither of those (of COURSE the "wage gap" exists--it's right there as a number--I dispute the MEANING of the number).

In ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS I wish to make and defend one point and one point only: There DOES NOT EXIST a pervasive discrimination against women in the workplace, to the extent that they are hindered, in a gross and pervasive manner, from access to the same economic opportunities that men seem to have.

I will admit:

• Surely, some acts of unfair discrimination occur (and they ALSO occur in the reverse direction--I know that because I've been subject to it).
• It is possible that socialization plays a role in the choices made by each gender, on average--girls may not be given the impression as boys are that they will have the responsibility of providing financially for others when they're adults. (Whether disparity in gender roles is good or bad is a completely separate discussion).

I also say:

• Americans are generally law-abiding, fair-minded, and sensible people. The idea that no one should be excluded from the economin pie because of their race.....or gender is SENSIBLE and FAIR. I don't hear, "in the locker room" tales of discrimination--as I might hear tales of other socially disapproved activities. I don't hear men COMPLAIN about women taking their jobs, or the AFFRONT that women are paid as much as men. I see no direct social evidence that men wish to "cheat" women out of economic opportunity.
• Both men and women (who have strong societal instincts--and that's most of us) have a tendency to serve others (mostly, their family), and see that tendency as part of a social norm. For men, BY FAR, almost 100% of that "service" is financial: they seek to serve a present or future family by breadwinning. It seems that women have always had (and continue to have) more directions into which their service can go.

What people/couples choose to do with their lives is their business. EVERY statistic seems to show that women on average choose NOT to follow the male pattern of putting 100% of their effort into work. However, for women who DO choose that, the available evidence seems to show that they are not hindered in acheiving 100% of what men acheive economically.

Stevie

Did you see the statistic I offered from The Economist at the beginning of this thread?

great post by-the-way

Yes I did see that statistic. It's yet ONE MORE EXAMPLE of how statistics are POOR at PROVING something, but often very good at DISPROVING something (if only because it's generally easier to disprove than prove).

Every time I've seen the "overall" wage gap bored into for more detail the more the data fails to demonstrate that discrimination is the cause of any gender disparity.

I'll say again what I've said before: the best and most direct way to show social processes is to demonstrate them directly (probably by anonymous survey). Statistics are a HORRIBLY poor way to try to get at actual social processes.

StevieN,

However, for women who DO choose that, the available evidence seems to show that they are not hindered in acheiving 100% of what men acheive economically.

What available evidence do you have for this?

The statistic does not prove or *disprove* anything. How does an African American woman's salary versus and Caucasian woman's salary reflect anything? It does NOT disprove gender bias in the workplace, at all.

Let me explain in simple terms. Say three African American women get professional degrees and they make salaries of 100,000 each, in industries where that is standard pay. Their average salary is 100,000 dollars. Say 7 Caucasian women earn professional degrees and enter into industries where 4 of them make 60,000, and 3 enter industries where they make 100,000. Their average salary is 77,000.

Does that say *anything* about gender-based discrimination? No. Does marriage have anything to do with it? No!

You need a lot more information than that for it to be an indication of anything, let alone the conservative author's ridiculously unsubstantiated idea that marrying rich guys is the explaining factor. On its own, it disproves *nothing.*

Say men in any of those fields make, on average, 20,000 more than their female counterparts. Why? I don't know. Have there been instances where such circumstances have come about simply because of gender? You betchya! Lilly Ledbetter is just the most recent proof, publicized proof.

No one knows anything about this: no one *knows* exactly why the gender wage gap exists. There are about 100 different explanations that, in combination, can probably begin to explain it. No singular explanation will encompass everything, nor does any single piece of legislation hope to solve the problem. The proposed legislation is meant to fight one specific reason behind the wage gap: gender discrimination. Just like some pieces of proposed legislation were meant to fight wage discrimination based on racial discrimination.

Attempting to argue that these things do not exist, and thus we don't need legislation, is ridiculous. These things *do* exist--they might not explain every instance of wage discrepancy, but they *do* explain some.

This is what I don't understand: why do you feel the need to turn a blind eye to things that obviously exist? It's not always statistical trickery, it's not always the result of personal choices: gender discrimination *exists!*

I'm sure some acts of discrimination occur in both directions, but there hasn't been very many publicized and proven cases of men complaining of being given lower out of salaries based on their gender, has there? And it has nothing to do with men not complaining about it: the statistics do not support any socioeconomic trend that would support that idea. There have been proven cases where women have sued, and won, based on gender discrimination. Given the fact that we're operating on a long history of institutional/economic/social gender-based oppression, it's much easier to believe that we haven't come as far as we think we have, let alone turned the corner and began moving in the opposite direction. Unless we're really *that* progressive as a nation (which we are *not.*)

Just because *you* don't hear or see things (or maybe you do and just aren't paying attention, or are trying to rationalize it away) does not mean they do not exist. Your experience is not the *only* experience. You may find certain things acceptable but that does not mean *everyone* does. You do not decide what exists and what does not exist. Nor does your political support for a specific candidate change the American landscape.

OK mercadia,

The null hypothesis. If your hypothesis is that the "wage gap" shows that gender discrimination is pervasive, then the first test you should conduct is to determine that the null hypothesis is FALSE. In fact, if your null hypothesis is well-formed, and you disprove it, then THAT ALONE is generally considered sufficient evidence that your hypothesis is true.

One quite good null hypothesis to test your hypothesis would be:

• There are statistics that show the REVERSE pay levels between the genders. This turns out to be TRUE (thus disproving your hypothesis): there are numerous examples of jobs where the wage gap is in favor of women. Again, by the scientific method, this PROVES (and it's difficult to actually PROVE things!) that discrimination is not pervasive.

Another null hypothesis to test your hypothesis would be:

• Similar wage gaps can be seen which can NOT be due to gender discrimination, thus showing that such gaps are not necessarily due to gender discrimination. Here, kuruman's data about black women is an excellent example (and it ALSO goes against the direction of racial discrimination). Again, this single instance of the null hypothesis being TRUE positively PROVES the falsity of your hypothesis.

So, already, your hypothesis is irrefutably demonstrated to be false. But forgetting that for the moment (and setting aside probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing: there is NO JUSTIFICATION for using the wage gap to assess for pervasive discrimination, since it does NOT address at all the issue of equal pay for equal work); another step in the scientific process would be to look for supporting evidence. One support would be:

• There direct social evidence for pervasive discrimination? Again I find the answer to be no. An example would be racism. When racism was rampant is was IMPOSSIBLE to dismiss: not only could Blacks not get jobs, they couldn't even eat in restaurants. MANY whites would declare OUTRIGHT their views on the status of Blacks. If this forum were in existence in the 1950's, and we were discussing racism, you could be certain there would be thousands of posts talking about what niggers did and did not deserve, and how they could have anything they wanted--as long as they kept to themselves, etc. But I personally see no similar social reality regarding discrimination of women. I don't hear ANYONE (in private or in public) saying women should be paid less for the same work. I don't hear ANYONE saying women don't belong in the workplace. So again, your hypothesis FAILS to find support in the obvious category of social attitudes.

IN FACT, the reality is this: There exists a subset of feminist theory that says that women should have an equal role in ALL AFFAIRS to the role of men. That is, it is NOT ENOUGH that women have equal opportunities, they must also take EQUAL PART in all activities. Of course this is an effort at social engineering--and an effort to impose upon people to think and feel differently than they currently do. And that's fine to make such an attempt.

HOWEVER, in certainly confuses the discrimination argument. For that subset of feminists, it is FULLY ENOUGH to demonstrate a wage gap. Indeed they are correct: the existence of a wage gap ALONE demonstrates that women are not playing an equal economic role to men. For that feminist subset, the CAUSES of the wage gap are UNIMPORTANT. Which is the start of the trouble--the implication is allowed to stand that the gap is evidence of discrimination--when it isn't.

Great post Stevie...I just know you have convinced Mercadia now. I just know it!!!

haha. I know you're joking. But maybe, actually I WILL! Perhaps she'll acknowledge we're taking about different things: gender equality vs gender identity. I'm not particularly interested in the issues of gender identity (except to say that I think it ruins people's lives--but not mine).

I AM interested in equal opportunity for everyone. It's fair and just, and we can't live well and right without it. The best place to make a case for INequality is in public schools--there is a HUGE variation in the quality of public schools, and certain people are economically deprived of a good, early education. I'm happy to say that exlusionary discrimination based on race or gender is NOT an important social force anymore, IMO.

Now if we as a society could only get over the need to DEMONIZE MEN (and bestow victimhood upon women), I'd be quite content.

Wrong. Your argument seems to imply that, discrimination, in order to exist, must be absolute--all or nothing and in every instance.

Sorry, no.

I've already said that the wage gap alone does not prove pervasive discrimination (but, when looked at through the lens of about 100 other factors, it can be easily viewed as such). Nor does kuruman's statistic alone disprove pervasive discrimination--as I've JUST shown you.

Why don't you actually *read* my post?

And are you actually claiming that, because the Jim Crowe laws were abolished, that racial discrimination no longer exists?

You are some piece of work.

When are you going to be defeated? You try to explain your logic, and it doesn't hold. It *never* holds. Why don't you give up already? You are WRONG.

Deal with it. I know it's tough for you elder gents to come to grips with the fact that you are not correct, but you are *not* correct.

StevieN,

And again, I apologize that you feel like you must shoulder the blame for discrimination--being an old white male and all. But no one is blaming you, so get over your persecution complex. I *am* blaming you for making these ridiculous arguments because you need to absolve yourself from your imagined persecution. Take a deep breath and repeat after me,

"I am not the cause of all of the world's problems. I am not the cause of all of the world's problems. I am not the center of society. There are people who exist outside of myself. My perception does not encompass reality. I am not the cause of all of the world's problems."

Feel better yet? Can we move on now?