fellis: All this makes no difference.

What?? After all my extensive research this morning?

When AAUW did their research, they didn't say that there were no women working fewer hours or no women with less experience. Infact, they acknowledged that such women were present in the working place and they excluded these women from their research work.

Please show where the AAUW made this acknowledgement

They used the findings gotten from women doing the same work as men and with the same qualification.
Fine, there are cases where women are paid less because of their labour hours and experience but there are also cases where women are paid less even when they have the same qualification and put in the same amount of work.

You'll really have to prove this by showing a research study where all factors have been adequately accounted for.


By the way I am not going to say that there aren't such cases, there probably are but I'll argue that such cases are not the norm. In fact i can also produce cases of gender discrimination against men.

Mr anony:
What?? After all my extensive research this morning?

Sorry

Please show where the AAUW made this acknowledgement
You'll really have to prove this by showing a research study where all the factors have been adequately accounted for

They excluded women with less qualification and less work hours from their research work because they knew these things could explain the wage gap, your post from the labour union findings stuff showed that some women work less hours and have less qualifications so that explains why those women are paid less. However, those women were not part of the AAUW findings

, The study called Graduating to a Pay Gap, points out that job choices may initially explain the problem. For example, many women choose lower paying industries, such as teaching or social sciences, while men select jobs in science and technical industries, which pay more.
So, as the Washington Post notes, the authors tried to make everything as similar as possible. They tracked graduates with identical collegiate experiences, limited familiarity with the work world, and those who didn't have spouses or children.

But the wage gap persisted.

By the way I am not going to say that there aren't such cases, there probably are but I'll argue that such cases are not the norm. In fact i can also produce cases of gender discrimination against men.

Ok. First you say there are probably cases of discrimination against women in the work place.
Then you say there are definitely cases of discrimination against men in the work place and you show me such cases. Are you serious? If there can definitely be discrimination against men in the work place then there can also definitely be discrimination against women. You're just unwilling to accept it.
Also, I didn't say discrimination is the norm in any part of this thread. I said it happens. I don't support any type of discrimination anyway, be it against men or women.

Mr anony:
And you didn't read this part in the article?

That's not my point. My point is that you said AAUW blamed lower wages entirely on women's choices about negotiating while you ignored the part that said gender discrimination also plays a role in it.

By the way, notice the strong bias towards women in the article.

How won't you notice bias when you don't like the research findings? You have been talking about this bias since yesterday so nothing new here.
"

I think the actual numbers released by the U.S. Department of Labour are actually much more accurate since they are not trying to promote any particular gender's welfare

That your department of labour stuff does nothing at all to negate the point I have been trying to make since.

Logicboy03:
See what I deal with in the religion section?
This guy remixes and spins like a DJ.

Lol
The dude is relentless. And pleep's cheerleading is not helping matters.

The guy even claims that lilly ledbetter was not discriminated against in her job....then when pressed....he says there is no evidence......I wonder then how she deceived the district court court to win the case on the basis of gender discrimination

I wasn't even able to go through the Lily case, I have been a bit busy. Will read it later.
Thanks for the support Logicboy
The world needs more men like you

fellis:
Lol
The dude is relentless. And pleep's cheerleading is not helping matters.


I wasn't even able to go through the Lily case, I have been a bit busy. Will read it later.
Thanks for the support Logicboy
The world needs more men like you

haha thanks.


Please read the lill ledbetter case and you wil see that Anony is talking nonsense

-she won the court in the district court case on the decision that she was unfairly evaluated due to her gender.
-the company then took it to a higher court to win on a technicslity that the time limit for a discrimination case had passed

-The president signed an act removing the time limit.....lilly ledbetter act

Logicboy03:
haha thanks.
Please read the lill ledbetter case and you wil see that Anony is talking nonsense

-she won the court in the district court case on the decision that she was unfairly evaluated due to her gender.
-the company then took it to a higher court to win on a technicslity that the time limit for a discrimination case had passed

-The president signed an act removing the time limit.....lilly ledbetter act

That's interesting. I'll read the link.

fellis:
That's not my point. My point is that you said AAUW blamed lower wages entirely on women's choices about negotiating while you ignored the part that said gender discrimination also plays a role in it.

Erhm fellis, I didn't say that. The AAUW by default will see gender discrimination in nearly everything

How won't you notice bias when you don't like the research findings? You have been talking about this bias since yesterday so nothing new here.

It's not that I don't like the research findings, I simply don't trust the AAUW to have unbiased findings as regards gender in the same way I won't trust MASSOB if they come up with research findings that prove that Igbos are marginalized.

That your department of labour stuff does nothing at all to negate the point I have been trying to make since.

And what point is that?

By the way, I hope you do realize that it is not "My department of labour". It is the official US department of labour report. I am curious as to why you would reject the official report in favour of that of an organization that clearly has an agenda.

fellis:
Sorry


They excluded women with less qualification and less work hours from their research work because they knew these things could explain the wage gap, your post from the labour union findings stuff showed that some women work less hours and have less qualifications so that explains why those women are paid less. However, those women were not part of the AAUW findings

Really? Here's some good reading for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Ok. First you say there are probably cases of discrimination against women in the work place.
Then you say there are definitely cases of discrimination against men in the work place and you show me such cases. Are you serious? If there can definitely be discrimination against men in the work place then there can also definitely be discrimination against women. You're just unwilling to accept it.
Also, I didn't say discrimination is the norm in any part of this thread. I said it happens. I don't support any type of discrimination anyway, be it against men or women.

The point you missed in your excitement is that gender discrimination is no longer an issue. You may find a few isolated cases here and there but to claim that women are treated unfairly in a general sort of way is simply false

^ This guy is like a breath of fresh air.

fellis:
Lol
The dude is relentless. And pleep's cheerleading is not helping matters.


I wasn't even able to go through the Lily case, I have been a bit busy. Will read it later.
Thanks for the support Logicboy
The world needs more men like you

The world does not need more logicboys

Logicboy03:


haha thanks.


Please read the lill ledbetter case and you wil see that Anony is talking nonsense

-she won the court in the district court case on the decision that she was unfairly evaluated due to her gender.
-the company then took it to a higher court to win on a technicslity that the time limit for a discrimination case had passed

-The president signed an act removing the time limit.....lilly ledbetter act

SMH. Here is a post you might be interested in:

https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/16#16238532

I just love watching logic melt your tiny brains!

pleep: I just love watching logic melt your tiny brains!

Na wa for these people. Can you believe I went out of my way to provide this woman with Official US Department of Labour Statistics but she just ignored them as if they were nothing.

Mr anony:
Na wa for these people. Can you believe I went out of my way to provide this woman with Official US Department of Labour Statistics but she just ignored them as if they were nothing.

I know the feeling, i was debating with these people from pages 8 to 11, and its nothing but straw-man arguments and logical fallacies. Thats why when i run into these types, i just insult em and move on.

they are simply not capable of an intellectually honest debate...

But anyone with a working brain can appreciate the excellent argument you made there.

pleep: I know the feeling, i was debating with these people from pages 8 to 11, and its nothing but straw-man arguments and logical fallacies. Thats why when i run into these types, i just insult em and move on.

they are simply not capable of an intellectually honest debate...

But anyone with a working brain can appreciate the excellent argument you made there.

pleep: I know the feeling, i was debating with these people from pages 8 to 11, and its nothing but straw-man arguments and logical fallacies. Thats why when i run into these types, i just insult em and move on.

they are simply not capable of an intellectually honest debate...

But anyone with a working brain can appreciate the excellent argument you made there.

pleep: I know the feeling, i was debating with these people from pages 8 to 11, and its nothing but straw-man arguments and logical fallacies. Thats why when i run into these types, i just insult em and move on.

they are simply not capable of an intellectually honest debate...

But anyone with a working brain can appreciate the excellent argument you made there.

Hi faggott

basra: Hi faggott

Na wa o! Is this what the cultural section is like?

basra:


pleep N i have u settled buisness. Plz stay out of it


i am gonna stick my joy stik in pleeps lips as they have been trained to swell up at the site of cokkk

Yuck!

basra: i know right, pleep is a dirty boy

So far the only dirty one I'm seeing is you. Anyway, I'm out of your business.

Mr anony:
So far the only dirty one I'm seeing is you. Anyway, I'm out of your business.

thank u.

by the way i dont believe in gender equality

i like my women submissive


which is also the same type of porographyy am into


nothing turns me on more than a woman who doesnt have a iob and relies on me for food and shelter

Mr anony: And what point is that?
By the way, I hope you do realize that it is not "My department of labour". It is the official US department of labour report. I am curious as to why you would reject the official report in favour of that of an organization that clearly has an agenda.

Official report on what exactly? It was a report that showed average labour statistics. It wasn't a report on the size and cause of wage disparities in both genders so I don't know why you say I "reject the official report" as if that report and AAUW research were done for the exact same reason.

Mr anony:
Really? Here's some good reading for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

You just keep bringing up links that don't make any difference in what we're saying. Sorry if it sounds like I am dismissive of your attempts to help but seriously. . . .
This is an excerpt from your link
Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination.

Even the author of your article said there is evidence of bias against women in the workplace and this is the reason why that wage gap may never go away.

The point you missed in your excitement is that gender discrimination is no longer an issue. You may find a few isolated cases here and there but to claim that women are treated unfairly in a general sort of way is simply false

The point you are also missing in your amnesia is that you started this wage gap discussion, pages back, by saying you had never seen a case where women got paid less because of gender and that women earning less was due to factors like unequal work hours, unequal risk taking and so on. I brought my AAUW finding up and told you that I was bringing it up because you said you had never seen cases of women getting paid less because of gender. Nowhere did I say I wanted to prove it was the norm, rather you were the one saying women were'nt getting less because of gender and now you've changed gears and you've started saying they get paid less because of gender but it isn't the norm.
Be consistent man.

fellis:
Official report on what exactly? It was a report that showed average labour statistics. It wasn't a report on the size and cause of wage disparities in both genders so I don't know why you say I "reject the official report" as if that report and AAUW research were done for the exact same reason.


You just keep bringing up links that don't make any difference in what we're saying. Sorry if it sounds like I am dismissive of your attempts to help but seriously. . . .
This is an excerpt from your link
Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination.

Even the author of your article said there is evidence of bias against women in the workplace and this is the reason why there that wage gap may never go away.


The point you are also missing in your amnesia is that you started this wage gap discussion, pages back, by saying you had never seen a case where women got paid less because of gender and that women earning less was due to factors like unequal work hours, unequal risk taking and so on. I brought my AAUW finding up and told you that I was bringing it up because you said you had never seen cases of women getting paid less because of gender. Nowhere did I say I wanted to prove it was the norm, rather you were the one saying women were'nt getting less
because of gender and now you've changed gears and you've started saying they get paid less because of gender but it isn't the norm.
Be consistent man.

I have told you time and time again that Anony is a skilled liar. Dubious to the core.

The points have been made

1) Women did receive less payment for doing the same job as men due to gender
2) Lily ledbetter was discriminated against because of her gender and paid less.

The guy is just trying to lie his way out of the false position he took on women

basra:
Hi faggott

That pleep is gay. I have never in my life seen a male do so much cheer leading and praise singing for another man.

Logicboy03:


I have told you time and time again that Anony is a skilled liar. Dubious to the core.

The points have been made

1) Women did receive less payment for doing the same job as men due to gender
2) Lily ledbetter was discriminated against because of her gender and paid less.

The guy is just trying to lie his way out of the false position he took on women

Wow, I didn't even know it was so bad. The guy is simply unbelievable with the switching and twisting

and his boyfriend pleep is always there to support him regardless of what rubbish he writes.

fellis:

That pleep is gay. I have never in my life seen a male do so much cheer leading and praise singing for another man.

i concur

Mr anony: Erhn fellis, I didn't say that. The AAUW by default will see gender discrimination in nearly everything.

You DID say it. You said AAUW blamed the entire 7% gap on women's unwillingness to negotiate.

Mr anony:
You'll find that the AAUW found that when compared to the same kind of work and college qualifications, the wage gap shrank from 23% to 7%. [size=16pt]In fact the AAUW blamed this 7% on the inability of women to negotiate higher salaries for themselves.[/size]

fellis:
Official report on what exactly? It was a report that showed average labour statistics. It wasn't a report on the size and cause of wage disparities in both genders so I don't know why you say I "reject the official report" as if that report and AAUW research were done for the exact same reason.

My point exactly. A research that sets out to find a specific result usually finds the the result it set out to find. I would rather trust a report that has no initial agenda in the matter.

You just keep bringing up links that don't make any difference in what we're saying. Sorry if it sounds like I am dismissive of your attempts to help but seriously. . . .
This is an excerpt from your link
Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination.

This is what happens when you look at things from your biased glasses and quote things out of context. Did you miss the part in red?

Even the author of your article said there is evidence of bias against women in the workplace and this is the reason why that wage gap may never go away.

What have you been smoking? I think I'll have to quote a longer passage here because it is either you don't understand what you are reading or you simply being dishonest.

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

"In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. [size=14pt]The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers.[/size] Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.

Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.

So basically the question I ask you is this: Are you seriously suggesting that a gap as small as 6.6 cents per dollar is really due to discrimination? Will you call it discrimination too if men earned 6.6 cents less than women? Or is equality to you only present if everyone earn the exact same amount? Please get realistic my friend.

The point you are also missing in your amnesia is that you started this wage gap discussion, pages back, by saying you had never seen a case where women got paid less because of gender and that women earning less was due to factors like unequal work hours, unequal risk taking and so on. I brought my AAUW finding up and told you that I was bringing it up because you said you had never seen cases of women getting paid less because of gender. Nowhere did I say I wanted to prove it was the norm, rather you were the one saying women were'nt getting less because of gender and now you've changed gears and you've started saying they get paid less because of gender but it isn't the norm.
Be consistent man.

I am being very consistent here. Women are not getting paid less because they are women. Isn't it interesting how the deeper we explore factors that actually affect pay, the more the so called wage gap shrinks?

fellis:
You DID say it. You said AAUW blamed the entire 7% gap on women's unwillingness to negotiate.

I did not say it was "entirely" the reason. Contrary to your accusation

Logicboy03:


I have told you time and time again that Anony is a skilled liar. Dubious to the core.

The points have been made

1) Women did receive less payment for doing the same job as men due to gender
2) Lily ledbetter was discriminated against because of her gender and paid less.

The guy is just trying to lie his way out of the false position he took on women

Lol ad hominem has started showing up again. Someone's rational tank is beginning to run on empty. Go and read the post i linked you to. And please be sure to investigate the links provided.

My points have also been made

1. Women do not receive less payment for doing the same job as men due to gender
2. Lily's case is an outlier just as the Ventura case where it refused to hire male salespeople
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-18-11b.cfm

fellis: That pleep is gay. I have never in my life seen a male do so much cheer leading and praise singing for another man.

fellis:
Wow, I didn't even know it was so bad. The guy is simply unbelievable with the switching and twisting

and his boyfriend pleep is always there to support him regardless of what rubbish he writes.

This is just low coming from you.

In my experience, people usually begin to attack an opponent's character instead of his points when they start finding it difficult to make a rational argument.

Mr anony:
My point exactly. A research that sets out to find a specific result usually finds the the result it set out to find. I would rather trust a report that has no initial agenda in the matter.

So why were you saying I rejected "the official report" when both findings were not even gotten from the same type of research? One of them is an average statistical report and the other seeks to find the amount and cause of wage gaps.

This is what happens when you look at things from your biased glasses and quote things out of context. Did you miss the part in red?

No I didn't miss it, the part in red states that there isn't much room left for discrimination. It doesn't say there is absolutely no discrimination taking place. That red text does nothing to negate my point.

What have you been smoking? I think I'll have to quote a longer passage here because it is either you don't understand what you are reading or you simply being dishonest.

I have read that article so I don't see why you decided to quote the entire page for me. I pasted a part of that article here that mentioned that there was evidence of discrimination against women in the workplace and for that reason, the gap would probably never be covered. That part of the write up was what was important to this conversation because I believe your reason for putting the link there was to show me that the wage inequality had nothing to do with gender discrimination against women.

So basically the question I ask you is this: Are you seriously suggesting that a gap as small as 6.6 cents per dollar is really due to discrimination? Will you call it discrimination too if men earned 6.6 cents less than women? Or is equality to you only present if everyone earn the exact same amount? Please get realistic my friend.

That 6.6% gap is partly due to discrimination. Your link said that.

I just tire for you. I don't even know what point you are arguing again. First you say that there are cases of gender discrimination against men and women in the workplace but it isn't the norm in this post:

Mr anony: By the way I am not going to say that there aren 't such cases, there probably are but I'll argue that such cases are not the norm. In fact i can also produce cases of gender discrimination against men

now it appears you are suggesting that the 6.6% gap has nothing to do with discrimination because it is negligible or because there cannot be completely equal payments.

I am being very consistent here. Women are not getting paid less because they are women.

Yet your link and my AAUW research placed gender discrimination as part of the reason for that gap.