makeitalmosteasy
"I may sound old-fashioned, but I want to think all women should be treated like I want my wife, daughters, and granddaughters to be treated. I notice today that good manners—like standing up when a woman enters the room, helping a woman with her coat, letting her enter an elevator first, taking her arm to cross the street—are sometimes considered unnecessary or a throwback. These are habits I could never break, nor would I want to. I realize today a lot more women are taking care of themselves than in the past, but no woman is offended by politeness." — Frank Sinatra
proofofexistence
proofofexistence:

illsevenyournine:

proofofexistence:

peacocktales:

toiletpaperlint:

tommilsom:

patronsaintoffirebenders:

oh

oh

oh

What wage gap

I promised not to reblog anything on my new blog so, I’ll leave this up for a few days. I simply dislike stupid, so I cannot let this pass up.Should we compare a Manager at a Best Western Hotel’s salary to the General Manager at a Marriott’s? Because seriously, that is what you are doing here.
Titles:A) Safra Catz - “an” executive more specifically a CFO & Co-President. CFO being the greater of the 2 titles (as there are 2 Presidents in this company). Board member.B) Tim Cook - CEO. Board member.
Companies:A) Oracle Net Income: $10.9BTotal Assets: $81.81BTot. Employees: 120K(2013)B) AppleNet Income: $41BTotal Assets: $176BTot. Employee: 80K(2012)
Lists:AFL-CIO: Exec Watch - http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/100-Highest-Paid-CEOsForbes: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/john-hammergren-of-mckesson/Why is Tim Cook missing?
Conclusion:One of the greatest myths of this decade is the Male to Female wage gap. It’s seriously, very stupid. The true gap is nothing like this nor is it 3/4 of men. It is actually .87-.92 cents per dollar. A gap, yeah, but significantly smaller than the claims of 0.60-0.75 by liberals.I have seen far better examples of “evidence” claiming a gap. Not only is the example above, terrible, but it’s not even accurate. Sarah’s $51M would put her in the top 7 of CEO’s on the AFL-CIO watch list, mind you, she isn’t a CEO. Tim Cook’s compensation is counted in company shares (issued at once) 1 million shares.  This is why his package is a ridiculous $378M. (Note* Sarah’s share compensations were not alluded to regardless of what kind of point that makes). This explains why Tim Cook is missing on the 2 lists above because of the immediate share issue (split it over a few years and it’s normalized on a curve but still high). Why did I include company information?Look at net income. Apple is making 4x the amount of Oracle. Look at Assets. Apple doubles oracle. Now lets consider tying CEO pay to  Net Income.Oracle vs Apple = 1:4 Net Income ration (10B vs 41B).Oracle CEO = Ellison (96.2M) x 4 = 384.8M…putting it very close to Tim Cooks $378M.Am I saying Tim is underpaid? Pfft, No. In no way, I am just pointing out the discrepancies in comparing one CEO’s salary (woman or not) vs. another CEO’s salary.In this case, you are trying to compare a CFO (not the top dog) of a significantly smaller company, by income comparison, against one of the (if not the) wealthiest company in the world.Stop.If you have any complaints, then complain about the average worker vs executive wage gape. 

It’s adorable when people miss the point as badly as the person above me.
Or maybe just sad.
I’m not even sure.
Anyway, since this is apparently too hard to wrap your head around, I’ll explain the ol’ problem here.
You see, if there was no such thing as sexism (and a wage gap reflecting the sexist ideals of society), you wouldn’t see such a drastic difference between the highest-paid men and women. If there wasn’t discrimination against women, there wouldn’t be a $327 MILLION wage gap between the highest-paid woman and the highest-paid man. We would see a woman in an equally powerful position, making a comparable amount of money.
But do we see that? No. No we do not.
And this is reflective of the sexist power structure of our society in which men occupy most positions of power. Here’s a fun fact: women account for only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs. (HMMM I WONDER WHY THE HIGHEST PAID WOMEN AREN’T MAKING AS MUCH AS THE MEN. PERHAPS IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING BOXED OUT OF THE POSITIONS. HMMMM.)
Now I’ll wait for your comment where you say, “But that person specifically said the wage gap which is what I was responding to so I’m still right hahaha [fart noise].”
The wage gap is a reflection of institutionalized oppression, which women of color experience even more harshly. (You bet your ass I’m getting intersectional because it fucking matters that Black women and Latina women do not make $.82 on a (white) man’s dollar. That figure is what White women make. You wanna know where the $.77 figure comes from? It comes from averaging what women make while taking into account the portion of the work force they make up.
Here, I did the math.

Formula: ($/hour on man’s dollar)*(percentage of female work force); sum these totals to find average woman’s pay per one (white) man’s dollar.
White women: (.82)*(.67) = .5494Black women: (.69)*(.13) = .0897Hispanic women: (.60)*(.13) = .078Asian women: (.87)*(.05) = .0435Other: 2%, pay unaccounted for. [Can we just agree that this is negligible? Kthx.]
Sum total: .7606

OH WOULD YOU LOOKEE THERE. $.77 ON A MAN’S DOLLAR. WOW, IT’S ALMOST LIKE MAGIC.
So do not tell me — you, a man who does not experience the same level of institutionalized sexism and discrimination that women do — that the wage gap is bullshit and this screen cap is stupid. It is very real, and it negatively impacts women.
I will superglue 77 pennies to a baseball bat and BEAT YOU WITH IT.

Hi, so thanks for taking the time to offensively reply, I guess.Just a few things:
1. My issue with the OP was not an issue of “Gender Wage Gap” but one of claiming that it exists based off a really bad argument (see OP). The comparison between the Worlds richest company’s CEO (Apple) and a top (non-CEO) executive in a company with 1/4 the Net Income is a truly pathetic “evidence” for such a claim as the Gender Wage Gap. If it was anything close to being satisfactory, I’d have left it alone.2. I called the notion of using this as evidence “stupid.” I then marched toward the argument of the GWG. I did not direct any language towards a person, so your condescending little fit is uncalled for - though I suppose it is expected from your past remarks towards myself and any other opposition in general. Stay classy.3. Thank you for contributing to greater evidence that the politically minded Left is not only bad at debating but very emotionally inclined and violently “tolerant” when they are questioned. [Want to see a Liberal freak out? Question any notion of their “trinity” minded philosophy of emotion fueled anger in the areas of “gender, race and class.” It’s quite predictable.]——————————-
Now back to the topic at hand.Bad evidence is bad. I proved why bad evidence is bad. I did not even touch the sore subject of the Wage Gap. But since we are here…The wage gap is a farce. Well, I shouldn’t say completely. I mean, men do make more than women on average (controlling for the right things) but it is nothing of the “.77:1” ratio that feminist and leftists claim.Heck, even everyone’s favorite liberal-leaning fact check organization claims it’s “mostly-wrong”

A 2009analysisby the nonpartisan CONSAD Research Corp. in Pittsburgh concluded that three-fourths of the disparity can be explained by trends common to women:

they tend to choose occupations that have relatively low wages;


they tend to have degrees leading to lower-paying occupations than men;


they tend to have a shorter work history; and


they take more time off from work for childbirth and child care.

The American Association for University Women issued a report this year that offered similar explanations for the pay gap, saying it is partly due to “men’s and women’s choices, especially the choice of college major and the type of job pursued after graduation.”
"For example, women are more likely than men to go into teaching, and this contributes to the pay gap because teachers tend to be paid less than other college graduates," the report said.
Pamela Coukos, a senior program advisor at the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a July 2012 blogpostthat “economists generally attribute about 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination — making about 60 percent explained by differences between workers or their jobs.”

You know, it’s easy to get into a group-think emotion fueled hullabaloo when you think the world is out to get you. Sort of like how Christians believe God exists -  and by this one fact you explain the Universe and everything else - feminists and liberals believe there is this HUGE conspiracy to deplore women and keep them “pregnant and at home in the kitchen” - and by this they find evidence for everything including staying away from even asking for personal responsibility ( i.e., telling a woman not to abort her baby due to finances is unquestionable in their mindset and therefore discrimination, patriarchal, etc.)See, if the gender wage gap of “0.77Cents” were true, then Liberals have to somehow explain the ridiculous notion of why an employer - who has the main concern of sustaining the bottom line and producing efficiently - is willing to pay a man $40,000 a year when he could have a woman do the same job for $30,800?Are employers so anti-Women that they are willing to pay a man $9,200 more a year TO DO THE SAME JOB AS WELL AS A WOMAN?Why would a company concerned with the bottom line (which is 99.9% of companies btw) be so willing to pay an employee more just because they don’t like woman?Now THAT is stupid. You don’t even need to get into the numbers to realize how ridiculous that sounds."No here, we are struggling in this bad economy, but don’t you dare employ that woman! No! I’d rather pay this man $10K more than employ that woman." An employer that is THAT anti-Woman is not only stupid and most likely non-existent, but “he” will likely not have a company IN existence much longer.Now here is another question. The same type of people who throw a fit about this type of thing also claim “women are as capable and or equal with men in every area!” I agree (to a degree) - I would not say it with such conviction nor in “every area.” But if women are in fact just as capable as men in every area, Why aren’t employers saving “.33 cents” on the dollar/per dollar by hiring more women? Surely, more women would be would be filling positions than men to save employers money, right? (Let me guess the answer: discrimination?). Fact is - companies are concerned about the bottom line, so hiring more man just to discriminate on women, is illogical.Fact is - if a company can save money by moving to a different producing source (i.e. see overseas american companies) then they will.Fact is - these 2 questions above do more to prove the myth of the “.77” wage gap claim than any graph you can conjure up, or I can produce.That said, here are the numbers anyway:CONSAD report: See Here From the report: “Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”Truth is, the “.77:1” ratio is a MYTH more then 1 report has shown it as so (CBS). The big flame around the issue is fueled by the similar flames that claim any criticism of Obama is racism. What do I mean by that? Women were oppressed and “placed” in a “set” confine of “roles” in the past (just as blacks were slaves and discriminated against in the past) but does that mean a) they are now or b) any little statistic or socially identified “non-progressive” fact point to “evidence” that they are today? Uh, no. Sorry.This reminds me of 2 things. 1) My fiancèe’s career goals. My Fiancèe was one of the top applicants to her Graduate program. She smashed through a B.A. in Business Administration at CSUN (known for its strong business programs).  She then realized something, money making isn’t her passion. Helping others is! She applied to USC’s MSW program (Master of Social Work). Why is that significant? Because SW’s has been commonly ranked as one of the top professions where YOU WONT make money. Despite her excellent skills in BizAdmin and her Master’s degree, her career field does not yield big bucks. In fact, her MSW program was about 85% female. This is what these reports have proven by “career choices/decisions.”2. This reminds me of the epic UC-Berkeley lawsuit of 1973 that is a key example of the Simpson’s Paradox. For a quick idea of what the paradox is, go to wiki HERE (it also has the Berkeley case).The Berkeley lawsuit was a lawsuit where the claim was made that the Berkeley admission’s office was accused of discrimination BIAS against women in admissions. As a whole (considering all of the numbers - cumulative) there was about a 10% gap on admissions rates (44% men and 35% for women) into Cal programs. It looks like bias… until you break down into departments (see table).What was happening in this situation, men were applying to programs that were easier to get into at higher rates - and similarly women were applying to programs that were harder to get into at high rates. This resulted in a large number of women losing out on spots in the difficult programs, and men getting lots of spots in easier programs.ex. Nuclear Science: 15 Openings. Women Apps: 100 | Accepted 8 = 8% Men Apps 24 | Accepted 7 = 29%. As you can see above. There were actually MORE women that got accepted into the program. Problem was, so many of them applied to this VERY difficult program, that the affect creates a higher acceptance rate for MEN. This wasn’t an issue of discrimination, but actually one where women were just damn ambitious. Different example: Political Science: 125 Openings.Women Apps: 85 | 50 accepted = 58% RateMale Apps: 200 | 75 Accepted = 38%Look here. Women have a higher rate, but there is LESS of them because LESS of them were interested in PoliSci. Men were very interested in this and applied here IN A BUNCH but far less of them were accepted by ratio though they hold a larger amount of people admitted as a whole. See how the stats don’t tell the whole story? Yet somehow, Cal was still charged with discrimination. Why? It became an emotional issue (a liberal tool) rather than one about cold hard facts.Now the simpson’s paradox does not have too much to do with the issue at hand (though some say it does have a minor place: see here). My point of bringing it up has more to do with painting a picture of how an “appeal to emotion” affects an argument.Lastly, you say I can’t make my argument because I am a man?This is a classic fallacy. A ridiculous one a that. Proving a point like this has nothing to do with my gender (or shall I call you sexist for claiming so).You make this unsubstantiated claim that the fact that men hold a vast majority of CEO’ships as proof of discrimination against woman. What proof have you of that other than claims? “They are being boxed out” you say. Well let me spell a few things out for you. 1. The corporate world is cut throat, harsh and difficult. Will women be boxed out for being women? Yes! Men will also be boxed out by other men. This is what happens at that level of the game. Women ARE (whether you agree or not) more inclined to emotions and more inclined to take a softer approach unless coached to do so otherwise. Any show of “softness” will be attacked by a competitor vying for the top, just as it will be identified and attacked by another male competitor by a male competitor. This is the game. Is that a disadvantage to women? I say yes, but if you say yes, then you and other “women are equal in all parts” spouters must then swallow the cold truth that “women are the weaker vessel.” Am I excusing the cut-throat nature of the game to the top? No. But if you are to claim equality, do not cry “discrimination” when you are treated as equally as “one of the guys.”2. Men TOO are victims of institutionalized oppression. Men must be the “bread winners.” Men that are not “bringing home the bacon” are not only ostracized by their competitive same-sex counterparts, but they are also ostracized by women. Women seek to have pay equality with men, but they still want their husbands to make more than them (as Spar said so eloquently HERE). Men are told they have to be the primary bread winners, or else we are failures and “less than” men like our fathers. Though it is a generalization - it is a fact that women seek men with more money (whereas more money means security, stability etc.) just as men are generalized to seek “beauty over personality.” Can it be so that men are simply fighting harder to the top of the pay scale so as to maintain this notion of “being a man” by being the bread winner?Don’t think men can be ‘boxed-in’ into a sexist ideal as you claim women are? Then you are dead wrong and should “check your privilege” as liberals like to say.3. Women make decisions based off their world view. Just as men feel pressured to be the primary bread winner, women feel like being the secondary (or even stay at home) is absolutely satisfactory. Some believe, “hey I do not have to rise to the top if my husband is __________ and [We] are totally fine with that.” This isn’t societal pressure or oppression. In fact, the husband can even throw 100% support behind her “climbing to the top” - but she (and he in support of her) happily says “I am fine with being where I am.” Thus less CEOs/executives.4. And finally, you are forgetting that men, the primary bread winners for millenniums, have and will continue to do what they are doing (trying to be that primary winner and use their wealth to attract women). It’s biological and it’s socially acceptable. Women, be it due to contentment and or oppression, women have JUST come to the game (of working) within the last generation. The 1960s saw the first (very small) wave of women working full time. Was it accepted then? No. But that is not my point. My point is, it has been only 53 years from 1960 to now. Women are still getting used to, learning, and developing themselves in the workforce. The first 20-30 years it was under the scrupulous eye of “you should be at home taking care of the kids” and now it has only been 23 years under a normalized and “accepted” view by employers in the work place. So what then, you are pissed off that women have not moved fast enough to equality at being CEOs of the largest companies when it has only been some estimated 20 years of “normative” and “accepted” working? Meanwhile men have held the socially accepted view as “workers” and “primary” money makers for X,000 years. Well hell, give yourselves a break and allow some time to catch up. Just like Affirmative Action, creating laws that force equal pay against discrimination (where there is none) is not helping the female sex become equal, it is acting as a crutch to force equality.I recently saw an article showing 4 of 8 people picked for the NASA Astronauts program were women. I laughed. I didn’t laugh because I am a misogynistic jerk. I laughed because the artificiality of this acceptance rate is laughable. Go to any top University and you will find an incredible amount of men to women in the sciences and engineering department is a ratio of about 7:1. I am even being conservative here. Now you are to tell me, despite this ratio (which I made up btw I do not know the actual ratio I am just expressing an observation with an arbitrary number) somehow the new astronauts were selected 50% men and women? Do I believe there are 4 women in all the universities who could be astronauts? Absolutely! Of course there are. There are 100s! 1000s! But if there are 1000 women qualified enough to be astronauts, there are 7000 (by the rations standard) MEN who are qualified for the spot. Somehow it’s a perfect 50/50 split? That’s artificial. That what affirmative action does. My friend X (an engineer) whom I lived next to at my fraternity was somewhat frustrated that he was stuck in the apps process for Boeing (I changed the name of the company on purpose) despite his excellent grades (3.9). I then told him that our mutual female friend Y was offered a position with Northrop (having just recently applied). He noted “what!? How!? She has like barely a 3.0…oh, she a woman.” It dawned on him, heck, the government is desperate for female engineers and it will do anything to try and make that happen, including offering MORE contracts to companies that can prove they are more “equal” than their competitors.  Huh, so much for “male privilege” huh?But I digress… (is it too late for that?)

proofofexistence:

illsevenyournine:

proofofexistence:

peacocktales:

toiletpaperlint:

tommilsom:

patronsaintoffirebenders:

oh

oh

oh

What wage gap

I promised not to reblog anything on my new blog so, I’ll leave this up for a few days. I simply dislike stupid, so I cannot let this pass up.

Should we compare a Manager at a Best Western Hotel’s salary to the General Manager at a Marriott’s? Because seriously, that is what you are doing here.

  1. Titles:

    A) Safra Catz - “an” executive more specifically a CFO & Co-President. CFO being the greater of the 2 titles (as there are 2 Presidents in this company). Board member.

    B) Tim Cook - CEO. Board member.

  2. Companies:

    A) Oracle 

    Net Income: $10.9B
    Total Assets: $81.81B
    Tot. Employees: 120K

    (2013)

    B) Apple

    Net Income: $41B
    Total Assets: $176B
    Tot. Employee: 80K

    (2012)

  3. Lists:

    AFL-CIO: Exec Watch - http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

    Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/john-hammergren-of-mckesson/

    Why is Tim Cook missing?


  4. Conclusion:

    One of the greatest myths of this decade is the Male to Female wage gap. It’s seriously, very stupid. The true gap is nothing like this nor is it 3/4 of men. It is actually .87-.92 cents per dollar. A gap, yeah, but significantly smaller than the claims of 0.60-0.75 by liberals.

    I have seen far better examples of “evidence” claiming a gap. Not only is the example above, terrible, but it’s not even accurate. 

    Sarah’s $51M would put her in the top 7 of CEO’s on the AFL-CIO watch list, mind you, she isn’t a CEO. 

    Tim Cook’s compensation is counted in company shares (issued at once) 1 million shares.  This is why his package is a ridiculous $378M. (Note* Sarah’s share compensations were not alluded to regardless of what kind of point that makes). This explains why Tim Cook is missing on the 2 lists above because of the immediate share issue (split it over a few years and it’s normalized on a curve but still high). 

    Why did I include company information?

    Look at net income. Apple is making 4x the amount of Oracle. Look at Assets. Apple doubles oracle. Now lets consider tying CEO pay to  Net Income.

    Oracle vs Apple = 1:4 Net Income ration (10B vs 41B).
    Oracle CEO = Ellison (96.2M) x 4 = 384.8M
    …putting it very close to Tim Cooks $378M.

    Am I saying Tim is underpaid? Pfft, No. In no way, I am just pointing out the discrepancies in comparing one CEO’s salary (woman or not) vs. another CEO’s salary.

    In this case, you are trying to compare a CFO (not the top dog) of a significantly smaller company, by income comparison, against one of the (if not the) wealthiest company in the world.

    Stop.

    If you have any complaints, then complain about the average worker vs executive wage gape. 

It’s adorable when people miss the point as badly as the person above me.

Or maybe just sad.

I’m not even sure.

Anyway, since this is apparently too hard to wrap your head around, I’ll explain the ol’ problem here.

You see, if there was no such thing as sexism (and a wage gap reflecting the sexist ideals of society), you wouldn’t see such a drastic difference between the highest-paid men and women. If there wasn’t discrimination against women, there wouldn’t be a $327 MILLION wage gap between the highest-paid woman and the highest-paid man. We would see a woman in an equally powerful position, making a comparable amount of money.

But do we see that? No. No we do not.

And this is reflective of the sexist power structure of our society in which men occupy most positions of power. Here’s a fun fact: women account for only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs. (HMMM I WONDER WHY THE HIGHEST PAID WOMEN AREN’T MAKING AS MUCH AS THE MEN. PERHAPS IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING BOXED OUT OF THE POSITIONS. HMMMM.)

Now I’ll wait for your comment where you say, “But that person specifically said the wage gap which is what I was responding to so I’m still right hahaha [fart noise].”

The wage gap is a reflection of institutionalized oppression, which women of color experience even more harshly. (You bet your ass I’m getting intersectional because it fucking matters that Black women and Latina women do not make $.82 on a (white) man’s dollar. That figure is what White women make. You wanna know where the $.77 figure comes from? It comes from averaging what women make while taking into account the portion of the work force they make up.

Here, I did the math.

Formula: ($/hour on man’s dollar)*(percentage of female work force); sum these totals to find average woman’s pay per one (white) man’s dollar.

White women: (.82)*(.67) = .5494
Black women: (.69)*(.13) = .0897
Hispanic women: (.60)*(.13) = .078
Asian women: (.87)*(.05) = .0435
Other: 2%, pay unaccounted for. [Can we just agree that this is negligible? Kthx.]

Sum total: .7606

OH WOULD YOU LOOKEE THERE. $.77 ON A MAN’S DOLLAR. WOW, IT’S ALMOST LIKE MAGIC.

So do not tell me — you, a man who does not experience the same level of institutionalized sexism and discrimination that women do — that the wage gap is bullshit and this screen cap is stupid. It is very real, and it negatively impacts women.

I will superglue 77 pennies to a baseball bat and BEAT YOU WITH IT.

Hi, so thanks for taking the time to offensively reply, I guess.

Just a few things:

1. My issue with the OP was not an issue of “Gender Wage Gap” but one of claiming that it exists based off a really bad argument (see OP). The comparison between the Worlds richest company’s CEO (Apple) and a top (non-CEO) executive in a company with 1/4 the Net Income is a truly pathetic “evidence” for such a claim as the Gender Wage Gap. If it was anything close to being satisfactory, I’d have left it alone.

2. I called the notion of using this as evidence “stupid.” I then marched toward the argument of the GWG. I did not direct any language towards a person, so your condescending little fit is uncalled for - though I suppose it is expected from your past remarks towards myself and any other opposition in general. Stay classy.

3. Thank you for contributing to greater evidence that the politically minded Left is not only bad at debating but very emotionally inclined and violently “tolerant” when they are questioned. 

[Want to see a Liberal freak out? Question any notion of their “trinity” minded philosophy of emotion fueled anger in the areas of “gender, race and class.” It’s quite predictable.]

——————————-

Now back to the topic at hand.

Bad evidence is bad. I proved why bad evidence is bad. I did not even touch the sore subject of the Wage Gap. But since we are here…

The wage gap is a farce. Well, I shouldn’t say completely. I mean, men do make more than women on average (controlling for the right things) but it is nothing of the “.77:1” ratio that feminist and leftists claim.

Heck, even everyone’s favorite liberal-leaning fact check organization claims it’s “mostly-wrong

A 2009analysisby the nonpartisan CONSAD Research Corp. in Pittsburgh concluded that three-fourths of the disparity can be explained by trends common to women:

  • they tend to choose occupations that have relatively low wages;

  • they tend to have degrees leading to lower-paying occupations than men;

  • they tend to have a shorter work history; and

  • they take more time off from work for childbirth and child care.

The American Association for University Women issued a report this year that offered similar explanations for the pay gap, saying it is partly due to “men’s and women’s choices, especially the choice of college major and the type of job pursued after graduation.”

"For example, women are more likely than men to go into teaching, and this contributes to the pay gap because teachers tend to be paid less than other college graduates," the report said.

Pamela Coukos, a senior program advisor at the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a July 2012 blogpostthat “economists generally attribute about 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination — making about 60 percent explained by differences between workers or their jobs.”

You know, it’s easy to get into a group-think emotion fueled hullabaloo when you think the world is out to get you. Sort of like how Christians believe God exists -  and by this one fact you explain the Universe and everything else - feminists and liberals believe there is this HUGE conspiracy to deplore women and keep them “pregnant and at home in the kitchen” - and by this they find evidence for everything including staying away from even asking for personal responsibility ( i.e., telling a woman not to abort her baby due to finances is unquestionable in their mindset and therefore discrimination, patriarchal, etc.)

See, if the gender wage gap of “0.77Cents” were true, then Liberals have to somehow explain the ridiculous notion of why an employer - who has the main concern of sustaining the bottom line and producing efficiently - is willing to pay a man $40,000 a year when he could have a woman do the same job for $30,800?

Are employers so anti-Women that they are willing to pay a man $9,200 more a year TO DO THE SAME JOB AS WELL AS A WOMAN?

Why would a company concerned with the bottom line (which is 99.9% of companies btw) be so willing to pay an employee more just because they don’t like woman?

Now THAT is stupid. You don’t even need to get into the numbers to realize how ridiculous that sounds.

"No here, we are struggling in this bad economy, but don’t you dare employ that woman! No! I’d rather pay this man $10K more than employ that woman." 

An employer that is THAT anti-Woman is not only stupid and most likely non-existent, but “he” will likely not have a company IN existence much longer.

Now here is another question. The same type of people who throw a fit about this type of thing also claim “women are as capable and or equal with men in every area!” I agree (to a degree) - I would not say it with such conviction nor in “every area.” But if women are in fact just as capable as men in every area, Why aren’t employers saving “.33 cents” on the dollar/per dollar by hiring more women? Surely, more women would be would be filling positions than men to save employers money, right? (Let me guess the answer: discrimination?). 

Fact is - companies are concerned about the bottom line, so hiring more man just to discriminate on women, is illogical.
Fact is - if a company can save money by moving to a different producing source (i.e. see overseas american companies) then they will.
Fact is - these 2 questions above do more to prove the myth of the “.77” wage gap claim than any graph you can conjure up, or I can produce.

That said, here are the numbers anyway:
CONSAD report: See Here
 
From the report: “Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

Truth is, the “.77:1” ratio is a MYTH more then 1 report has shown it as so (CBS). The big flame around the issue is fueled by the similar flames that claim any criticism of Obama is racism. What do I mean by that? Women were oppressed and “placed” in a “set” confine of “roles” in the past (just as blacks were slaves and discriminated against in the past) but does that mean a) they are now or b) any little statistic or socially identified “non-progressive” fact point to “evidence” that they are today? Uh, no. Sorry.

This reminds me of 2 things. 

1) My fiancèe’s career goals. My Fiancèe was one of the top applicants to her Graduate program. She smashed through a B.A. in Business Administration at CSUN (known for its strong business programs).  She then realized something, money making isn’t her passion. Helping others is! She applied to USC’s MSW program (Master of Social Work). Why is that significant? Because SW’s has been commonly ranked as one of the top professions where YOU WONT make money. Despite her excellent skills in BizAdmin and her Master’s degree, her career field does not yield big bucks. In fact, her MSW program was about 85% female. This is what these reports have proven by “career choices/decisions.”

2. This reminds me of the epic UC-Berkeley lawsuit of 1973 that is a key example of the Simpson’s Paradox. For a quick idea of what the paradox is, go to wiki HERE (it also has the Berkeley case).

The Berkeley lawsuit was a lawsuit where the claim was made that the Berkeley admission’s office was accused of discrimination BIAS against women in admissions. As a whole (considering all of the numbers - cumulative) there was about a 10% gap on admissions rates (44% men and 35% for women) into Cal programs. It looks like bias… until you break down into departments (see table).

What was happening in this situation, men were applying to programs that were easier to get into at higher rates - and similarly women were applying to programs that were harder to get into at high rates. This resulted in a large number of women losing out on spots in the difficult programs, and men getting lots of spots in easier programs.

ex. Nuclear Science: 15 Openings. Women Apps: 100 | Accepted 8 = 8% Men Apps 24 | Accepted 7 = 29%. 

As you can see above. There were actually MORE women that got accepted into the program. Problem was, so many of them applied to this VERY difficult program, that the affect creates a higher acceptance rate for MEN. This wasn’t an issue of discrimination, but actually one where women were just damn ambitious. 

Different example: Political Science: 125 Openings.
Women Apps: 85 | 50 accepted = 58% Rate
Male Apps: 200 | 75 Accepted = 38%

Look here. Women have a higher rate, but there is LESS of them because LESS of them were interested in PoliSci. Men were very interested in this and applied here IN A BUNCH but far less of them were accepted by ratio though they hold a larger amount of people admitted as a whole. 

See how the stats don’t tell the whole story? Yet somehow, Cal was still charged with discrimination. Why? It became an emotional issue (a liberal tool) rather than one about cold hard facts.

Now the simpson’s paradox does not have too much to do with the issue at hand (though some say it does have a minor place: see here). My point of bringing it up has more to do with painting a picture of how an “appeal to emotion” affects an argument.

Lastly, you say I can’t make my argument because I am a man?

This is a classic fallacy. A ridiculous one a that. Proving a point like this has nothing to do with my gender (or shall I call you sexist for claiming so).

You make this unsubstantiated claim that the fact that men hold a vast majority of CEO’ships as proof of discrimination against woman. What proof have you of that other than claims? “They are being boxed out” you say. 

Well let me spell a few things out for you. 

1. The corporate world is cut throat, harsh and difficult. Will women be boxed out for being women? Yes! Men will also be boxed out by other men. This is what happens at that level of the game. Women ARE (whether you agree or not) more inclined to emotions and more inclined to take a softer approach unless coached to do so otherwise. Any show of “softness” will be attacked by a competitor vying for the top, just as it will be identified and attacked by another male competitor by a male competitor. This is the game. Is that a disadvantage to women? I say yes, but if you say yes, then you and other “women are equal in all parts” spouters must then swallow the cold truth that “women are the weaker vessel.” Am I excusing the cut-throat nature of the game to the top? No. But if you are to claim equality, do not cry “discrimination” when you are treated as equally as “one of the guys.”

2. Men TOO are victims of institutionalized oppression. Men must be the “bread winners.” Men that are not “bringing home the bacon” are not only ostracized by their competitive same-sex counterparts, but they are also ostracized by women. Women seek to have pay equality with men, but they still want their husbands to make more than them (as Spar said so eloquently HERE). Men are told they have to be the primary bread winners, or else we are failures and “less than” men like our fathers. Though it is a generalization - it is a fact that women seek men with more money (whereas more money means security, stability etc.) just as men are generalized to seek “beauty over personality.” Can it be so that men are simply fighting harder to the top of the pay scale so as to maintain this notion of “being a man” by being the bread winner?

Don’t think men can be ‘boxed-in’ into a sexist ideal as you claim women are? Then you are dead wrong and should “check your privilege” as liberals like to say.

3. Women make decisions based off their world view. Just as men feel pressured to be the primary bread winner, women feel like being the secondary (or even stay at home) is absolutely satisfactory. Some believe, “hey I do not have to rise to the top if my husband is __________ and [We] are totally fine with that.” This isn’t societal pressure or oppression. In fact, the husband can even throw 100% support behind her “climbing to the top” - but she (and he in support of her) happily says “I am fine with being where I am.” Thus less CEOs/executives.

4. And finally, you are forgetting that men, the primary bread winners for millenniums, have and will continue to do what they are doing (trying to be that primary winner and use their wealth to attract women). It’s biological and it’s socially acceptable. Women, be it due to contentment and or oppression, women have JUST come to the game (of working) within the last generation. The 1960s saw the first (very small) wave of women working full time. Was it accepted then? No. But that is not my point. My point is, it has been only 53 years from 1960 to now. Women are still getting used to, learning, and developing themselves in the workforce. The first 20-30 years it was under the scrupulous eye of “you should be at home taking care of the kids” and now it has only been 23 years under a normalized and “accepted” view by employers in the work place. So what then, you are pissed off that women have not moved fast enough to equality at being CEOs of the largest companies when it has only been some estimated 20 years of “normative” and “accepted” working? Meanwhile men have held the socially accepted view as “workers” and “primary” money makers for X,000 years. Well hell, give yourselves a break and allow some time to catch up. Just like Affirmative Action, creating laws that force equal pay against discrimination (where there is none) is not helping the female sex become equal, it is acting as a crutch to force equality.

I recently saw an article showing 4 of 8 people picked for the NASA Astronauts program were women. I laughed. I didn’t laugh because I am a misogynistic jerk. I laughed because the artificiality of this acceptance rate is laughable. Go to any top University and you will find an incredible amount of men to women in the sciences and engineering department is a ratio of about 7:1. I am even being conservative here. Now you are to tell me, despite this ratio (which I made up btw I do not know the actual ratio I am just expressing an observation with an arbitrary number) somehow the new astronauts were selected 50% men and women? Do I believe there are 4 women in all the universities who could be astronauts? Absolutely! Of course there are. There are 100s! 1000s! But if there are 1000 women qualified enough to be astronauts, there are 7000 (by the rations standard) MEN who are qualified for the spot. Somehow it’s a perfect 50/50 split? That’s artificial. That what affirmative action does. 

My friend X (an engineer) whom I lived next to at my fraternity was somewhat frustrated that he was stuck in the apps process for Boeing (I changed the name of the company on purpose) despite his excellent grades (3.9). I then told him that our mutual female friend Y was offered a position with Northrop (having just recently applied). He noted “what!? How!? She has like barely a 3.0…oh, she a woman.” It dawned on him, heck, the government is desperate for female engineers and it will do anything to try and make that happen, including offering MORE contracts to companies that can prove they are more “equal” than their competitors.  Huh, so much for “male privilege” huh?


But I digress… (is it too late for that?)