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.

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

Next time try to express your point clearly. You should have said AAUW blamed part of the 7% on inability to negotiate, instead of saying AAUW blamed the 7% on inability to negotiate becausd the latter is a general statement. You don't have to include the word 'entire' in it to make it a generalization.

Mr anony:
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.

But you were changing positions now. . . .na wa o. You said one thing in one post then said something else later. Then you were saying something about wage discrimination not being the norm as if I ever claimed it was the norm.
By the way its good to know you think so highly of me.

fellis:
Next time try to express your point clearly. You should have said AAUW blamed part of the 7% on inability to negotiate, instead of saying AAUW blamed the 7% on inability to negotiate becausd the latter is a general statement. You don't have to include the word 'entire' in it to make it a generalization.

Interesting. Why then did you think it was necessary to include the word "entirely" in order to make your point. Surely you know that saying something in a general sense is not the same as saying something in an absolute sense.

fellis:
But you were changing positions now. . . .na wa o. You said one thing in one post then said something else later. Then you were saying something about wage discrimination not being the norm as if I ever claimed it was the norm.

I have not changed position anywhere. You are the one adding absolute qualifiers like "entirely" and "dfinitely" to my comments.

By the way its good to know you think so highly of me.

Am I mistaken?

Mr anony:
I have not changed position anywhere. You are the one adding absolute qualifiers like "entirely" and "dfinitely" to my comments.

because you made generalizations!
Wow, lol.
I don't expect you to admit it though, but the fact remains that you made a generalization when you said AAUW blamed the 7% gap on negotiation.
And also, let me get you clearly once and for all.
Are you saying there are absolutely no cases of women getting paid less because of gender or
are you saying there are cases like that but they aren't the norm? What side are you on biko?

Am I mistaken?

But Mr anony, you didn't know me so well before, how did you decide that I am well behaved and not capable of sinking so low?

fellis:
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.

Lol, did it really seek to find the cause of the wage gap? or did it merely seek to find "discrimination against women"?

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.

I never said anything about absolutely no discrimination either. I just pointed out that 6.6 cents is too small to make a discrimination case.

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.

Lololol, so even after posting the entire passage for you, you still didn't get it. Nowhere does the article make the argument that "the wage gap will probably never be zero because women are being discriminated against". Read it in context. Read the paragraph preceding it. Understand the argument first. Stop quote-mining and reading your views into it.

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

No it didn't. It pointed out all the reasons why the 6.6% gap is not even accurate and could be much smaller. In fact it specifically argued that such a small gap is not enough to justify "discrimination" as the reason.

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:

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.

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

I think the problem here is that you are confusing gender bias with discrimination, Also you are failing to understand the causal relationships expressed in the articles. let me see if I can help you

1. Gender bias is preferring on gender over another.
2. Discrimination is actually depriving one gender of their rights because of a gender bias
3. The first link that you provided showed the AAUW arguing that women earned as low as 77% of what men earned and it was due to gender discrimination
4. I argued that the 23% pay gap was not due to gender discrimination and I cited factors such as hours worked and experience.
5. You produced another study from the AAUW citing a 6.6% gap. Which you also blamed on gender discrimination against women.
6. I produced an article criticizing the research showing that the AAUW took averages between the earnings of male lawyers and female librarians amongst other mistakes they made. Besides the 6.6% is such a small number to claim discrimination over.
7. You are now claiming that the article I posted argues that the tiny gap is because of discrimination.

The way you are going, even if it was a 0.0000001% gap you will still blame it on gender discrimination. For instance, do you know that male clerks earn 4.8% less than their female counterparts? While in the food preparation industry, females earn 11% more than their male colleagues? Are we justified in saying that the reason for this is due to gender discrimination against men? I need you to try and think carefully.

fellis:
because you made generalizations!
Wow, lol.
I don't expect you to admit it though, but the fact remains that you made a generalization when you said AAUW blamed the 7% gap on negotiation.

This is just silly. So if I made the general statement that human beings are bigger than dogs, you would have heard "All human beings are bigger than all dogs"?

And also, let me get you clearly once and for all.
Are you saying there are absolutely no cases of women getting paid less because of gender or
are you saying there are cases like that but they aren't the norm? What side are you on biko?

I am saying that in a general sense, women are not paid less than men because of gender discrimination.

But Mr anony, you didn't know me so well before, how did you decide that I am well behaved and not capable of sinking so low?

Well, we've spoken a few times before and once on phone and from those conversations I just assumed you were quite reasonable. If you really aren't a rational person then please pardon my mistake. Just know that what a person thinks of you usually determines how they treat you.

Mr anony:
This is just silly. So if I made the general statement that human beings are bigger than dogs, you would have heard "All human beings are bigger than all dogs"?

The example you cited above is not similar to the statement you made before. When you said the 7% difference was due to inability to negotiate, you were generalizing. You should have simply said the difference was due to inability to negotiate, but you said the 7% difference was due to inability to negotiate. The total difference was 7% for crying out loud and you said that 7% was as a result of inability to negotiate. How can you not see that you were generalizing in that comment?

I am saying that in a general sense, women are not paid less than men because of gender discrimination.

What do you mean by 'in a general sense'? Please explain.

Well, we've spoken a few times before and once on phone and from those conversations I just assumed you were quite reasonable. If you really aren't a rational person then please pardon my mistake. Just know that what a person thinks of you usually determines how they treat you.

I'm not sure why, but the bolded part sounded like a threat. . . . .anyway thanks for the advice.

Mr anony:


I never said anything about absolutely no discrimination either. I just pointed out that 6.6 cents is too small to make a discrimination case.

Fine, so you accept there is discrimition only that you think the figures are not enough to make a case. Good. Those figures however small, should not be there if they are due to discrimination of women in the workplace.

No it didn't. It pointed out all the reasons why the 6.6% gap is not even accurate and could be much smaller. In fact it specifically argued that such a small gap is not enough to justify "discrimination" as the reason.

It didn't rule out discrimination, it said gap was only a few cents large and there was not much room for discrimination, which is the same thing as saying discrimination is present but not to a large extent.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing gender bias with discrimination, Also you are failing to understand the causal relationships expressed in the articles. let me see if I can help you

1. Gender bias is preferring on gender over another.
2. Discrimination is actually depriving one gender of their rights because of a gender bias

I like how you gave such a simple and incomplete definition to gender bias just because you want to prove you are right.
No, my friend. That isn't the definition of gender bias. Firstly, the definition of bias from the oxford dictionary is
"Inclination or prejudice for or against one person, or group, compared with another, usually in a way that is considered to be unfair."
So when we say there is gender bias against women in the workplace, we are saying there is an inclination or prejudice against women (usually in an unfair way) because of their gender. How can you not see that it is the same thing as discriminating against them?

3. The first link that you provided showed the AAUW arguing that women earned as low as 77% of what men earned and it was due to gender discrimination
4. I argued that the 23% pay gap was not due to gender discrimination and I cited factors such as hours worked and experience.

Where did I post a link that showed 77% difference in wages and blamed that difference on gender discrimination? Please quote that post in your next reply.

5. You produced another study from the AAUW citing a 6.6% gap. Which you also blamed on gender discrimination against women.
6. I produced an article criticizing the research showing that the AAUW took averages between the earnings of male lawyers and female librarians amongst other mistakes they made. Besides the 6.6% is such a small number to claim discrimination over.

Your article critisized the research and took averages between men working high paying jobs and women working low paying jobs. Good, fine, I accept. What you should realize is that the researchers also compared the salaries of men working low paying jobs to that of women working high paying jobs. The salaries compared covered a number of white collar jobs in which some cases included women earning less than men and some cases included women earning more than men. It wasn't one sided. After the results were compared, women were still found to earn lesser wages on average.

7. You are now claiming that the article I posted argues that the tiny gap is because of discrimination.

My point wasn't that your article claimed the entire gap is due to discrimination. It was that it says there is little room for it, meaning it is still there but not to a large extent.

The way you are going, even if it was a 0.0000001% gap you will still blame it on gender discrimination. For instance, do you know that male clerks earn 4.8% less than their female counterparts? While in the food preparation industry, females earn 11% more than their male colleagues? Are we justified in saying that the reason for this is due to gender discrimination against men? I need you to try and think carefully.

Please produce a link(s) to this information. I can't answer your question untill I see links.

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.

lol do you feel threatened or what?

I will support any man i want. If that upsets you cry about it as for this discussion, you are getting ooowned.

pleep: lol do you feel threatened or what?

I will support any man i want. If that upsets you cry about it as for this discussion, you are getting ooowned.

d1ck riding.......shameful

As for the gender disparities.. it is statistically impossible for for the earnings of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million.

Logicboy03:

d1ck riding.......shameful

well, its better than clit riding

Yall need to chill out. You see a man supporting another (corret) man and your heads are fit to explode.

pleep: well, its better than clit riding

Yall need to chill out. You see a man supporting another (corret) man and your heads are fit to explode.

It takes a real man to ehem......the clit....


Guy, stop supporting this Anony guy, he is a serial liar. In the religion section, there is a name for his tactic- Anonyism

You guys are being much more intellectually dishonest than he is.... the guy is trying for you people, i have to respect that.

If it was me, i would have just starting insulting yall by now

pleep: well, its better than clit riding

Blood of jisos!

is it really better?

please tell us more about how riding a díck is way better than clit riding.
You clearly have a lot of knowledge about the former.

pleep: You guys are being much more intellectually dishonest than he is.... the guy is trying for you people, i have to respect that.

If it was me, i would have just starting insulting yall by now

You need to calm down. The guy is not gay, he has a girlfriend

bla bla bla fellis, stay on topic. You are the same woman who pretended to be a man when i first met you

pleep: bla bla bla fellis, stay on topic. You are the same woman who pretended to be a man when i first met you

Explain how díck riding is better than clit riding

no

fellis:
The example you cited above is not similar to the statement you made before. When you said the 7% difference was due to inability to negotiate, you were generalizing. You should have simply said the difference was due to inability to negotiate, but you said the 7% difference was due to inability to negotiate. The total difference was 7% for crying out loud and you said that 7% was as a result of inability to negotiate. How can you not see that you were generalizing in that comment?

I don't see the point you are trying to make. A 7% difference in the average wages between men and women is more likely to result from things like poor negotiation than it would from discrimination wouldn't you agree?

What do you mean by 'in a general sense'? Please explain.

Refer to my comment about speaking generally i.e. "human beings are bigger than dogs" doesn't mean "all human beings are bigger than all dogs"
Similarly: "Women are not paid less than men because of gender discrimination" is not the same as "all companies do not pay all women less because of gender discrimination". There might be a few companies that actually discriminate against women and a few that discriminate against men but this is not the norm. The reasons for wages usually have nothing to do with gender.

I'm not sure why, but the bolded part sounded like a threat. . . . .anyway thanks for the advice.

Nah it wasn't a threat. It was just a statement of fact. How a person behaves usually determines how he/she will be treated.

Fine, so you accept there is discrimition only that you think the figures are not enough to make a case. Good. Those figures however small, should not be there if they are due to discrimination of women in the workplace.

Urhm no I don't. I am saying that the figures are so small to be a result of discrimination.

It didn't rule out discrimination, it said gap was only a few cents large and there was not much room for discrimination, which is the same thing as saying discrimination is present but not to a large extent.

Lolol, no not at all. How do you even read? The article is arguing that "the tiny wage gap shows that discrimination is highly unlikely." You are hearing that "the tiny wage gap proves that discrimination is small"

I like how you gave such a simple and incomplete definition to gender bias just because you want to prove you are right.
No, my friend. That isn't the definition of gender bias. Firstly, the definition of bias from the oxford dictionary is
"Inclination or prejudice for or against one person, or group, compared with another, usually in a way that is considered to be unfair."
So when we say there is gender bias against women in the workplace, we are saying there is an inclination or prejudice against women (usually in an unfair way) because of their gender. How can you not see that it is the same thing as discriminating against them?

You missed the point I was making which is separating a bias from an action. For instance you are a muslim so I suppose you will naturally be biased towards muslims. Now this bias does not mean you won't pay a christian employee equal pay with a muslim employee. Where you fail to do that, then I'll say you are discriminating. But as long as you are treating them equally, you can keep your bias without discriminating against the christian.

Where did I post a link that showed 77% difference in wages and blamed that difference on gender discrimination? Please quote that post in your next reply.

Here you go: https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/15#16229535

Your article critisized the research and took averages between men working high paying jobs and women working low paying jobs. Good, fine, I accept. What you should realize is that the researchers also compared the salaries of men working low paying jobs to that of women working high paying jobs. The salaries compared covered a number of white collar jobs in which some cases included women earning less than men and some cases included women earning more than men. It wasn't one sided. After the results were compared, women were still found to earn lesser wages on average.

Good, now you are beginning to think. But isn't it funny that immediately after the controls were added the gap shrunk from 23% to 6.6%? Do you really believe that women earn on average 93.4 dollars for every 100 dollars an average man makes is because men are oppressing them?

My point wasn't that your article claimed the entire gap is due to discrimination. It was that it says there is little room for it, meaning it is still there but not to a large extent.

No meaning that you cannot claim discrimination if the gap is that small.

Please produce a link(s) to this information. I can't answer your question untill I see links.

Here you go. http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/data.htm#cps_occ_earnings_ratio

So are male postal service clerks discriminated against?

pleep: As for the gender disparities.. it is statistically impossible for for the earnings of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million.

Beautiful. Please tell them. If the results were 7% in the other direction, will they call it discrimination against men?

Mr anony:
I don't see the point you are trying to make. A 7% difference in the average wages between men and women is more likely to result from things like poor negotiation than it would from discrimination wouldn't you agree?

Reasons given were simply negotiation and discrimination. There was no 'negotiation is more likely to be the cause' anywhere in that AAUW research. So you are now saying the reason you made that statement about the 7% is because you think the negotiation reason is more likely? This kain approximation is somehow. Next time don't generalize because there is no way I would have known you were approximating because you thought one reason was more likely.

Refer to my comment about speaking generally i.e. "human beings are bigger than dogs" doesn't mean "all human beings are bigger than all dogs"
Similarly: "Women are not paid less than men because of gender discrimination" is not the same as "all companies do not pay all women less because of gender discrimination". There might be a few companies that actually discriminate against women and a few that discriminate against men but this is not the norm. The reasons for wages usually have nothing to do with gender.

Again, I never said it was the norm nor did I say it was the usual thing. This wage conversation started because you said you were yet to see a case where women did similar work as men and got paid less.

Nah it wasn't a threat. It was just a statement of fact. How a person behaves usually determines how he/she will be treated.

I already know this and I don't know why you felt you had to remind me. It sounded like a threat sha, but if you say it wasn't one then no problem.

Urhm no I don't. I am saying that the figures are so small to be a result of discrimination.

In one sentence you say there are actually cases where women are discriminated against (see your quoted post about it not being the norm) then you say in another statement that the figures are too small to be as a result of discrimination. What is the cause of the gap then? And don't you think those cases of discrimination against women (which you said were not the norm) could be the reason for it?

Lolol, no not at all. How do you even read? The article is arguing that "the tiny wage gap shows that discrimination is highly unlikely." You are hearing that "the tiny wage gap proves that discrimination is small"

What was written:
"However with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination"

What you read:
"Discrimination is highly unlikely"
What fellis read:
"Discrimination is present but it is not great".

Your unwillingness to accept that the gap is partly due to discrimination is what makes you read that statement differently from me.

You missed the point I was making which is separating a bias from an action.

For heaven's sake.
So that was the point you were trying to make? I had no idea, considering the fact that you gave a scanty and incomplete definition of bias and ended up making it look like there is nothing wrong with bias.

For instance you are a muslim so I suppose you will naturally be biased towards muslims. Now this bias does not mean you won't pay a christian employee equal pay with a muslim employee. Where you fail to do that, then I'll say you are discriminating. But as long as you are treating them equally, you can keep your bias without discriminating against the christian.

Gender bias against women is what leads to discrimination against women.
Gender bias on its own is a problem. You cannot be prejudiced towards a certain gender and expect that it won't reflect on the way you treat them.

Here you go: https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/15#16229535

You didn't read that link. It was the same AAUM research about the 7% difference I posted there.

Good, now you are beginning to think.

Wow. So what have I been doing since? Not thinking?
This is too low even for you Mr anony.

But isn't it funny that immediately after the controls were added the gap shrunk from 23% to 6.6%? Do you really believe that women earn on average 93.4 dollars for every 100 dollars an average man makes is because men are oppressing them?

I believe discrimination is partly to blame.

No meaning that you cannot claim discrimination if the gap is that small.

So what is the point in all this long talk if I can cite discrimination as the reason for the gap?

Here you go. http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/data.htm#cps_occ_earnings_ratio
So are male postal service clerks discriminated against?

Possibly. According to research findings men supposedly negotiate more so its possible.

fellis:
Reasons given were simply negotiation and discrimination. There was no 'negotiation is more likely to be the cause' anywhere in that AAUW research. So you are now saying the reason you made that statement about the 7% is because you think the negotiation reason is more likely? This kain approximation is somehow. Next time don't generalize because there is no way I would have known you were approximating because you thought one reason was more likely.

hey I am a different person from the AAUW. The AAUW sees discrimination against women in nearly everything. I don't. I don't think a mere 7% gap can be attributed to discrimination.

Again, I never said it was the norm nor did I say it was the usual thing. This wage conversation started because you said you were yet to see a case where women did similar work as men and got paid less.

Here's what I said.
"I am yet to see a feminist present consistent evidence of men and women working at the same level in the same establishment yet the woman earns less."

I am still yet to see it.

In one sentence you say there are actually cases where women are discriminated against (see your quoted post about it not being the norm) then you say in another statement that the figures are too small to be as a result of discrimination. What is the cause of the gap then? And don't you think those cases of discrimination against women (which you said were not the norm) could be the reason for it?

There are also cases of discrimination against men that are also not the norm. Women are not the only victims you know.

What was written:
"However with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination"

What you read:
"Discrimination is highly unlikely"
What fellis read:
"Discrimination is present but it is not great".

Your unwillingness to accept that the gap is partly due to discrimination is what makes you read that statement differently from me.

Go and read it again in the context of what the article is actually about.

For heaven's sake.
So that was the point you were trying to make? I had no idea, considering the fact that you gave a scanty and incomplete definition of bias and ended up making it look like there is nothing wrong with bias.

There is nothing wrong with bias.

Gender bias against women is what leads to discrimination against women.
Gender bias on its own is a problem. You cannot be prejudiced towards a certain gender and expect that it won't reflect on the way you treat them.

Bias is not a problem. I am always biased towards Christians. as I suppose you are towards muslims. i am also strongly biased towards my family and friends. There is nothing wrong with biases. It is actual unfair discriminatory actions that are wrong.

You didn't read that link. It was the same AAUM research about the 7% difference I posted there.

please quote the passage in that link that talks about a 7% difference.

Wow. So what have I been doing since? Not thinking?
This is too low even for you Mr anony.

Lololololol, poke back at me...nice one there.

I believe discrimination is partly to blame.

Why?

So what is the point in all this long talk if I can cite discrimination as the reason for the gap?

i should ask you why you would want to cite discrimination for an average gap of a mere 6.6% taken over a sample of more than 100 million workers. Did you really expect the difference to be zero?

Possibly. According to research findings men supposedly negotiate more so its possible.

Lol, so it is possible that men are discriminated against because of a mere 4.8% gap? Really? I think you are jumping to conspiracy type theories here.


Let me also ask you this, according to the Bureau of labour statistics 4021 men have been victims of fatal workplace accidents compared to 319 women. Is it also a case of gender discrimination that men are involved in 1200% more occupational hazards than women? Or is it simply that men tend to do more dangerous jobs like construction, firefighting, mining etc while women tend to do less dangerous jobs like social work, catering and hairdressing?

Mr anony:
hey I am a different person from the AAUW. The AAUW sees discrimination against women in nearly everything. I don't. I don't think a mere 7% gap can be attributed to discrimination

So you should have told me the reason you attributed the 7% gap to negotiation was because you don't think discriminnation is the cause, instead of saying you were not generalizing.

There are also cases of discrimination against men that are also not the norm. Women are not the only victims you know.

Where did I say women are the only victims? What has this got to do with anything?

Go and read it again in the context of what the article is actually about.

I have read the aritle before, nowhere does it say that discrimination cannot be a reason for the gap. What it says is that there is little room for it.

There is nothing wrong with bias.
Bias is not a problem. I am always biased towards Christians. as I suppose you are towards muslims. i am also strongly biased towards my family and friends. There is nothing wrong with biases. It is actual unfair discriminatory actions that are wrong.

You've come back with your special definitions again.
So nothing is wrong with bias?
Let me write the definition of bias I got from the dictionary;
Inclination or prejudice for or against one person, or group, compared with another, usually in a way that is considered to be unfair."
So if a person shows prejudice against you in a way that is unfair there is nothing wrong with it?

please quote the passage in that link that talks about a 7% difference.

That article is talking about the same AAUW research that found the 7% difference. It is a summary, but there is a link to the washington post on the fourth paragraph, that provides more information on the research, the link mentions the 7%.

Why?

Because there is bias held against women in workplaces, especially those working in traditionally male fields.

i should ask you why you would want to cite discrimination for an average gap of a mere 6.6% taken over a sample of more than 100 million workers. Did you really expect the difference to be zero?

I think the gap still exists because of the initial wage discrimination that was done against women before the passing of the 'Equal pay act' of 1963. According to this wikipedia source, one of the impacts of passing that act was the increase in wages for women. The bureau of labour statistics found that after the act was passed, there was a significant increase of women's wages vis a vis men wages, from 62% of men's earnings in 1970 to 82% in 2004. I think the gap is gradually shrinking as years go by but it hasn't been eliminated.

Lol

Wow, you really like to laugh Mr anony.

according to the Bureau of labour statistics 4021 men have been victims of fatal workplace accidents compared to 319 women. Is it also a case of gender discrimination that men are involved in 1200% more occupational hazards than women? Or is it simply that men tend to do more dangerous jobs like construction, firefighting, mining etc while women tend to do less dangerous jobs like social work, catering and hairdressing?

These things were controlled in the AAUW research.
But the overall gap — the 18-percentage-point disparity — could be explained by career choices; men are more likely to enter high-paying fields such as engineering and computer science. The researchers controlled for that, along with other variables, but an “unexplained” 6.6-percentage-point gap remained...... 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.
“

There is nothing wrong with bias?


Anony and his Anonyism


Fellis, give up. You cant win. Let me give you an analogy;

Would you as a muslim engage in a heated argument with a thrash talking tout?
You would use reason while the tout will abuse your whole family and your existence. There is no winning scenario for you- better to svoid the tout.


Anony doesnt play by rules. He can make words mean whatever they want to.

Bias is a natural function of the own-group mechanism that every human has. It is not inherently wrong until society allows biased people to inform the public opinion on a particular issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

What Anon said earlier about the AAUM being a biased source is right. Women have an own group preferance in their favor, and on any gender issue (or any other issue for that matter) the vast majority of females will be heavily biased in favor of the female. I'm sure most of you have noticed this in real life...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

The interesting part is that men do not have and own group preferance for other men, and often also favor women.

For this reason most studies and organizations by women/for women have an insurmountable slant..., as the most biased members of an already biased female population. (this is akin to white nationalists stats on black people) They cannot really be trusted as a source of balanced information

It was though these phychological quirks in the human brain that an ideology so unbalanced as feminism came to attain such a market share in the worldwide conciousness.

Fellis and logicboy are two good, albiet extreme, examples of how this bias can cloud an individuals judgement on a particular issue.

pleep:
What Anon said earlier about the AAUM being a biased source is right. Women have an own group preferance in their favor, and on any gender issue (or any other issue for that matter) the vast majority of females will be heavily biased in favor of the female. I'm sure most of you have noticed this in real life...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
The interesting part is that men do not have and own group preferance for other men, and often also favor women.
For this reason most studies and organizations by women/for women have an insurmountable slant..., as the most biased members of an already biased female population. (this is akin to white nationalists stats on black people) They cannot really be trusted as a source of balanced information

Good god the foolishhness is killing me. There is a difference between not having an automatic bias response and not having bias at all. That publication you posted said men do not have an automatic bias mechanism, it didn't say men do not show any kind of bias towards their own groups. How will you even think such a thing is possible?
From your link
"Our experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference..... In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations."
Learn the meaning of an automatic response before you come here to claim that the women in AAUW were acting on automatic bias all through the period of the research.

pleep:
Fellis and logicboy are two good, albiet extreme, examples of how this bias can cloud an individuals judgement on a particular issue.

Pleep is a good albeit extreme example of how d1ck riding can cloud an individual's judgement

pleep: [size=18pt]Bias is a natural function of the own-group mechanism that every human has. It is not inherently wrong until society allows biased people to inform the public opinion on a particular issue.
[/size]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

What Anon said earlier about the AAUM being a biased source is right. Women have an own group preferance in their favor, and on any gender issue (or any other issue for that matter) the vast majority of females will be heavily biased in favor of the female. I'm sure most of you have noticed this in real life...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

[size=18pt]The interesting part is that men do not have and own group preferance for other men, and often also favor women.
[/size]

For this reason most studies and organizations by women/for women have an insurmountable slant..., as the most biased members of an already biased female population. [size=18pt](this is akin to white nationalists stats on black people)[/size] They cannot really be trusted as a source of balanced information

Wow, this guy oozes foolishness by the second!


1) Bias is not wrong
2) Women doing studies about women = white nationalis doing stats on blacks
3) Men dont have bias against women but women do against men

^If you have a problem with the study that proves that women have an automatic own group preference, kindly mail the university of purdues research department

101 N Grant St #110 West Lafayette, IN 47907
(765) 494-4636

and argue with them.

fellis:

Good god the foolishhness is killing me. There is a difference between not having an automatic bias response and not having bias at all. That publication you posted said men do not have an automatic bias mechanism, it didn't say men do not show any kind of bias towards their own groups. How will you even think such a thing is possible?
From your link
"Our experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference..... In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations."
Learn the meaning of an automatic response before you come here to claim that the women in AAUW were acting on automatic bias all through the period of the research.


Pleep is a good albeit extreme example of how d1ck riding can cloud an individual's judgement

You didn't say anything here, just alot of type that essentially means nothing. If you want to create a more respected environment for women you need to start with yourself and improve your reasoning skills.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

"revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference" Men do not favor other men simply because they are male, but women are baised for the female in almost every situation. This is what causes the slant in gender issues given from the female POV

Logicboy03:

3) Men dont have bias against women but women do against men

Exactly. Men usually do not have an automatic bias against women, and usually will favor females over males. While women do have this bias, and will usually favor the female also.

This is why female speeders can usually talk their way out of tickets and jugdes are around 40% more lenient with jail sentances to female criminals

Here is an example, something like this would not happen if the genders were reversed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZxr0sFmqow