So, yes, you do believe there are jobs that men are more suited for than women, and visa versa. Why would you say that understanding this wasn't rational then?


Do you actually believe this or are you just playing devil's advocate?

You also mentioned wage discrimination. Are you aware of the wage gap myth?

Few to the point where it's basically irrelevant, and even then that's because they're some explicit necessity for the gender in particular.


Yes I believe that. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at a children's clothing section and notice the split between girls' clothes and boys' clothes. It'd be foolish to say that putting specific types of clothes in different sections supposedly for different genders doesn't send a message to children.


If you're going to bring up a counterpoint, you'd be best to spell it out. Asking if I'm aware of a myth and not bothering to explain it is basically putting more work on me to find out about it if I'm not aware. Frankly, it's your job to explain your side of the argument, not mine.

When we talk about the "Wage Gap", people misquote an asinine statistic that women make .78 cents on the dollar that men do in the U.S. It's really bad math, because it willfully ignores the thousands of factors that contribute to how much money people make in their careers and does a raw comparison which isn't useful information. Whenever you actually select for equal candidates across the gender aisle, that gap diminishes to almost complete statistical significance.

The gap is as small as you can imagine as students get out of college, and widens in the early 30s where women tend to become mothers. Single women at this time are still making 98% of what men do. Blindly saying "All men period make this much, divide it, they make this much per hour, that's more than women" ignores the life choices that the two genders make. On average, men work more hours in a work week. When you do that, obviously most people also collect overtime in the process. Women take more vacation days without factoring in child rearing and maternity leave then men do, so obviously men are making more money by actually showing up. Women are less okay with traveling and leaving where they currently live for a better paying job than men. Men are willing to work in more dangerous work environments than women are and are usually compensated for it. When women are presented with tons of opportunities in college, they are far more likely to choose academic jobs than jobs in the STEM fields which have higher yields. Fun fact - when a woman applies to a STEM field job, they are 3 to 1 more likely to get that job over the male counterpart of equal qualification.

When you look at all overall earnings for women compared to men, at hourly wage, for 30 hour work weeks and above, women make 1.1% more than men do. That's how men and women need to be compared - if two people have the same job, how much more money does one gender make than the other, and the answer is almost nothing. If you just go "well who makes more total, oh man men do at 19%. Well who makes more at full time jobs, well 9.1% but still that's significant!" without accounting for those very real decisions women make, you're performing bad science and bad math. Time magazine reported that in 147 of the 150 most populated states in the US, the median full-time salary of women was 8.1% higher than that of men.

Before you make the jump and say "Well women are just offered the bad paying jobs, and those jobs are bad paying jobs because they are dominated by women", that's also very false. There are jobs that each gender gravitates more, whether it be for culture reasons, social and parental upbringings, or biological, and it's not that "women just happened to get the shit jobs" because they don't. Veterinary sciences make tons and tons of money, and that field is absolutely dominated by women. Nursing, again a field where people make a great deal of money, 92% of registered nurses are women. So yes there are tons more women teachers and women social workers not making fat stacks, but they also dominate representation in high pay yield jobs.

I believe that is what Ele is referring to Oracle.


*Edit* Because I want to make a relevant contribution to the whole "Modern Feminism" thread concept -

It's really really easy to find extremists in any population. When one does that, they may use that paint brush and coat the entire group with those stereotypes. Yes, some feminists aren't true feminists, they want female superiority. They don't want equality. They are violent, dangerous, and ignorant. However, the vast majority of feminists (and I do consider myself a very loud feminist), are just logical good-hearted people. We recognize the biological differences between men and women, we accept people for who they are, and we aren't ignorant to the fact that women are not our lesser and deserve equal everything.

I responded to this myth previously.

I know women make less than men if you use the method of total wages earned over a lifetime, and that's due to more women taking time off for stuff like maternity leave. However, in that time I brought it up, I also posted an article that cites a study that showed a female candidate for a position as a lab manager would receive an initial salary offer a couple thousand dollars lower than a male candidate, despite the resumes being submitted being identical except for the first name of the candidate being either female or male, and also rate the male as more competent. The same article also cites a study that shows that, as greater percentage of women make up the population of profession, the overall wages in that field also drop. This is not due to females being devalued, but because males are viewed as more valuable than women. This discrepancy is also found in another study, also cited in that same article, that compared physician salaries on a yearly basis and found that, compensating for education, position, years of experience, and other factors, that female physicians would be paid substantially less with their salary than their male counterparts.

Here's the article again if you don't want to go looking back for it: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/civil...money-than-men

So ya, I'm aware of the "myth", and it's quite bogus. Wage discrimination is more complicated than just $.78 to the dollar, but it's also doesn't mean it's nonexistent because the sound bite is misleading. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Would you be able to find out what the multivariable adjustments were in the first study?

When writing reports, studies or findings its important (and common practice everywhere) to include details like this showing how results were obtained for good reason, and I dont know why the authors of that study havent done it. Or I could just as easily say "I made multivariable adjustments found women earn 29% more than men!"

While Im not saying thats necessarily what theyve done, when analysing a report you need that information.


I can go through the other article in a week or so, it has too many links which are a pain to navigate on my phone

Factors for multivariable adjustments are listed under the study's synopsis.

Multivariable adjustments in the study did not account for, critically, hours worked due them being unable to accurately assess this information across all participants. However, including hours worked would be unlikely to remove the $20k average difference between the genders that the study found. Namely due to the nature of salary, and that salaried workers in the U.S. are not subject to being paid overtime.

To analyse you dont just need factors, all equations used should be listed, as this demonstrates the method. This is usually done in the 2nd section (which is usually introduction) and the equations would be referred back to.

Different hours worked could give a very significant difference so it does also seem odd for the investigator not to include that

You can point to individual examples of jobs where men earn more than women, and I can the same with with jobs where women earn more than men (architecture, social work, advertising etc.).

None of this means anything though. This data doesn't represent some greater evil. Are female architects 'more valuable' than male ones because they're women? No. That'd be a silly claim to make, wouldn't it? There'd be no reason to jump right to sexism for the cause.

Interesting to note that the times have changed so much in the last half-century that female adwomen out-earn their male counterparts now - Don Draper's spinning in his grave.

Modern feminism has turned into a cult of women hating on men, hell i've seen white male feminists hating on white males. A lot of the shit they say and quote isnt true, such as the pay wage gap, and how all white males are racist pigs, it just isnt true. And smaiva, it's easy not to be a feminist, all you have to do is: 1. Not be a vegan such as yourself. And 2. Take what feminists say with a grain of salt. And 3. Proof read some of the shit they claim, because i guarantee 95% of it can be disproved with a little googling.

Except modern feminism is the largest variety of feminism out of all the iterations of feminism. To write off all of modern feminism because some of it is radical is fallacious. Literally nothing should be taken seriously if that were the case, because there's always the one group that will take something to the radical extreme.

Almost every argument in this thread against modern feminism relies on a massive strawman by only focusing on the extreme sides of feminism, when there are more than enough moderate voices in the movement who argue for legitimately nuanced positions which can be thoughtfully debated.

For example, maternal leave severely lags in the U.S., despite pregnancy being one of the largest drains on female worker productivity, as the lack of adequate maternal leave results in a lot of women being forced to leave the workplace. Would you agree that arguing for broader, more supportive, maternal leave to be a reasonable position? Because that is incorporated under the umbrella of modern feminism.

Is the issue of female objectification in modern media a problem for the images and role models that are presented to young woman? This issue probably has more dissent over it, but it's still a reasonable discussion to be had, and it is a topic under modern feminism.

Abortion is a woman's right, or is it a violation of the child's rights? This is also a hot topic of modern feminism.

There are so many possible topics under modern feminism that people could be debating, yet almost universally everybody in this thread who has argued against modern feminism has basically just said "lul feminazis fuck em" as if the radical portion is all there is to modern feminism.

It's literally not hard to say "I don't believe modern feminism is necessary because x, y, z." with x, y, z, being replaced with statistics or studies, or even anecdotes, that support that differences in treatment between women and men are shrinking. Unless you're just not interested in participating in a meaningful way, all it takes is a quick google search to find evidence to support virtually any opinion you'd want.