Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny that article makes a point that the gender pay gap adjusted for most factors has women earning 95% of what men earn. The cartoon shows a guy on a stack of coins and a woman on a stack of coins about 50-60%as tall as the mans. The cartoon is a good example of how overexaggerated the pay gap has been. By the article's own data, the woman on the cartoon should be on a stack of coins just one or two shorter than the mans, but that wouldn't be dramatic enough to cause such a stir if it were accurately depicted. This is the reason we hear the pay gap exaggerated dramatically most of the time. When you look at all factors involved, it exists, but is much smaller than most activist are willing to admit. Overdramatizing it so frequently makes pay gap activists untrustworthy noise makers most of the time.
You are arguing about a cartoon for Christ sake... Anyone who looks at the cartoon, and not the actual data, isn't smart enough to understand the data in the first place. In other words, chill out.
You are arguing about a cartoon for Christ sake... Anyone who looks at the cartoon, and not the actual data, isn't smart enough to understand the data in the first place. In other words, chill out.
The cartoon depiction is a pretty close representation of how much the actual data is commonly exaggerated, which is why I commented about it. In other words, learn to read.
Wow, a 35% exaggeration is a-okay with you? Lets apply that to climate change. Our planet can withstand 35% more warming than the published numbers suggest. How is that going to work out? Facts do matter.
I don't think women should be glad with 95%, but if they are looking at facts and reality instead of a wildly overstated claim, they can be honest about the situation and fight for what they deserve from there. IDK, I guess I'm one of those crazy people that thinks overstating an issue for dramatic effect is not the right way to approach things. A lot of women truly believe the wild claims that women make an enormous amount less than men. The truth is some men make more than other men for the same work and same job, but the men making less usually don't have support groups encouraging them to be mad and blame it on gender.
Its not always just whats in a person's pants that determines pay. Negotiating for high pay is part of each individual's responsibility when seeking employment, just like benefits and other compensation. And I'm not some dinosaur old white guy. My wife earns more than me and has for almost 10 years now and I'm extremely proud of her. She also earns more than every man in her department and I have always encouraged her to continue working hard and ask for more money anytime she takes on more responsibility or gains new skills that are valuable.
I don't doubt that sexism exist and that lower pay is sometimes given because of that. But exaggerations by advocacy groups push the idea that is the only reason it happens and that it is many times worse than data supports.
so you are ready to dismiss any concern because some may exaggerate. That keeps it simple doesn't it.
I am a female, 65, and I think that in almost all cases, women in the same circumstances as a man -- with the same education, intelligence, ambition, talents (etc., etc., etc.) have just as good a chance of succeeding --as the man does IF she does not muck it up by having children before she is firmly established in her career. (And, yes, some might say with great justification that the same constraints don't apply to most men!)
However, I think that more women than men put a higher priority on their personal lives (love and family) than they do their careers. I don't have any facts or statistics to back up that opinion, but it seems to apply to most people I have known, but I could be wrong about the majority of women overall (although I don't think so).
Systems (such as the patriarch) are bigger than individuals so a system in place puts barriers and obstacles that can be insurmountable by an individual, but the systems in place now are much less than they were years back. I think now it's more of an individual's choices and decisions (for the most part). It still exists, but there are ways around it, under it and over it.
Let help you out...
There has never been a male hierarchy that existed for the benefit of men as a group, i.e., a patriarchy.
Throughout human history, the male hierarchy benefited a tiny fraction of males and the females that were able to select well-positioned male partners.
The cartoon depiction is a pretty close representation of how much the actual data is commonly exaggerated, which is why I commented about it. In other words, learn to read.
No, I can read just fine. I see you railing about a cartoon and it being exaggerated. Like I said, if people can't see past that to the actual data, they won't understand it anyways. In other words, it is a cartoon. Cartoons tend to be exaggerated. Have you never seen a political cartoon, for instance?
You can argue all day about the data being exaggerated, but to sit here and make multiple posts about 1 cartoon drawing in 1 article as if it makes some kind of grand point is just dumb.
No, I can read just fine. I also see you railing about a cartoon and it being exaggerated. Like I said, if people can't see past that to the actual data, they won't understand it anyways. In other words, it is a cartoon. Cartoons tend to be exaggerated. Have you never seen a political cartoon, for instance?
You can argue all day about the data being exaggerated, but to sit here and make multiple posts about 1 cartoon drawing in one article as if it makes some kind of grand point is just dumb.
The only reason I made more than one post about the cartoon is to try and help people like you with low reading comprehension. My point was about the actual data, the comment on the cartoon was to point out thats how bad the actual data has been exaggerated. No, you can't read fine at all. The cartoon comments were not meant to be a grand point, just a comment about it being a pretty fair depiction of how far the gap is exaggerated compared to actual data. The actual data behind commonly reported pay gap vs the actual pay gap being dramatic was my point.
You are hung up on misunderstanding my comments and even after explaining my intentions you are determined to misunderstand my intent so you can take cheap shots because you don't like what I'm posting.
The only reason I made more than one post about the cartoon is to try and help people like you with low reading comprehension. My point was about the actual data, the comment on the cartoon was to point out thats how bad the actual data has been exaggerated. No, you can't read fine at all. The cartoon comments were not meant to be a grand point, just a comment about it being a pretty fair depiction of how far the gap is exaggerated compared to actual data. The actual data behind commonly reported pay gap vs the actual pay gap being dramatic was my point.
You are hung up on misunderstanding my comments and even after explaining my intentions you are determined to misunderstand my intent so you can take cheap shots because you don't like what I'm posting.
So the cartoon is just your way of saying the data may be correct, but people exaggerate it? Not sure why you would need to talk that much about a cartoon when you could have just said, "95% is probably about right, but people usually exaggerate it." That certainly isn't what your first post sounded like though, when you accuse the author of using this cartoon to purposely misrepresent the data to be dramatic and cause a stir, but whatevs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFit
Funny that article makes a point that the gender pay gap adjusted for most factors has women earning 95% of what men earn. The cartoon shows a guy on a stack of coins and a woman on a stack of coins about 50-60%as tall as the mans. The cartoon is a good example of how overexaggerated the pay gap has been. By the article's own data, the woman on the cartoon should be on a stack of coins just one or two shorter than the mans, but that wouldn't be dramatic enough to cause such a stir if it were accurately depicted.
As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter if it 95% or 60%% -- it is unequal.
You are never going to get an equal amount, 5% would be within or near the error margins for statistics like this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
