salary statistics and feminism, I need your help

[Shiftkey]

Recently I got into a debate with my professor (poly sci) about women's pay equality. He argued the same sad story that women get payed less than men, etc etc. I said that the statistics are spun to take the average of ALL men and ALL women without taking experience, education, and other objective factors into consideration. He couldn't prove me wrong by providing statistics to the contrary (infact he had nothing to back up his lecture, as usual). Obviously I couldn't provide any data also because I didn't know we would be discussing the subject before hand. But I KNOW I've read statistics to back up my claim somewhere.

This is where you come in. Out of all the anti-feminists who are members on this site, I know that at least one of you has to have this kind of stuff on his bookmark list. I'd love to prove my professor wrong, but if you have statistics to back up feminists, go ahead and post that too. What I am looking for is statistics that do NOT take a blind average. I need them to clearly factor in experience and education. And they must be current! I've searched for this stuff myself, and all I can find is stuff from the early 90s, which is no good.

Thanks in advance.

 

[SAYNO]

Recently I got into a debate with my professor (poly sci) about women's pay equality. He argued the same sad story that women get payed less than men, etc etc. I said that the statistics are spun to take the average of ALL men and ALL women without taking experience, education, and other objective factors into consideration. He couldn't prove me wrong by providing statistics to the contrary (infact he had nothing to back up his lecture, as usual). Obviously I couldn't provide any data also because I didn't know we would be discussing the subject before hand. But I KNOW I've read statistics to back up my claim somewhere.

This is where you come in. Out of all the anti-feminists who are members on this site, I know that at least one of you has to have this kind of stuff on his bookmark list. I'd love to prove my professor wrong, but if you have statistics to back up feminists, go ahead and post that too. What I am looking for is statistics that do NOT take a blind average. I need them to clearly factor in experience and education. And they must be current! I've searched for this stuff myself, and all I can find is stuff from the early 90s, which is no good.

Thanks in advance.

Start here:




http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0305/nemko1.asp

http://angryharry.com/esMenearnquarterofamillionpoundsmore.htm


http://angryharry.com/esWomendonotDeserveEqualPay.htm




SN'

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

It's rarely EVER an APPLES to APPLES comparison, even for men to men or women to women. Put another way, unless a man applies for the SAME job, in the SAME city, with the SAME experience, how is that to be expected to be the same? Having hired and let go of people, a specific position MIGHT call for one sort of employee, however...

If...

Applicant #1 has worked in the industry for 10 years, has the necessary licenses, and the personal attitude, apply for a Customer Relations Position.

Vs.

Applicant #2 has worked in similar industries, but not the specific one, has no licenses, and has inverse skills, applying for the position Customer Relations Position.

You NEED the position filled, but you know Applicant #1 has more ability to grow and would be in HIGHER demand across all industries VERSUS Applicant #2, how can you say, "Well I should pay them both the same." Not True. Applicant #1 might cost $50,000 to hire, but generate $100k, $200k, or more in revenue, be proactive with ideas, and generally driven to succeed, whereas Applicant #2 sees it as a JOB, or isn't widely pursued, so you pay $40,000 or less, and they may only provide enough revenue/cost savings to justify their own job and a little more.

See what I'm saying?

There's no PERFECT job applicant that has a 100% MATCH, even to one's own sex.

----------------------------

The fallacy of economics is that it presumes prudent players in a logical game. That the minute supply creeps up, prices fall, thereby increasing demand. Conversely, the minute demand increase, prices rise, supply rises, and then prices falls once again. It's great on paper, but not 100% realistic in that, it's only a model of a perfect world, that does not exist.

Also consider that MOST women don't go for HIGH paying jobs, so a smaller percent go for the jobs MOST men want. Are we supposed to be TOUCHY, FEELY about something like business? Are you kidding me? Women can be good, and women can be bad. They're great in support roles. But if they're in charge, it's hard to divide between emotion and terroritory, and as their longevity grows, women are more POSSESSIVE. Men who rely on their female assistants THAT hard, almost make them their wife in that capacity. I've run into a few like that, where would speak unprofessionally, disrespectfully, and 100% emotionally. The head owner ALLOWED it because she obviously did EVERYTHING unquestioned for him. It's a tradeoff and some owners are willing to suffer the consequences.

I don't mind women going for the same role, and some CAN be fantastic at what they do, but it's PURE bs that they get paid less. Are people forced to take on female salespeople to bump up numbers or is their an inherent confidence in choosing a guy? Base a person on their MERITS, their trackrecord, not on their sex.

That's the feminists BS debate.


A-Unit

 

[Marlimus]

go to savethemales.ca and check their reference section for all your anti-feminist needs.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Well if you really think about it, for jobs that don't require sissy womanly emotions, computers and machines make the best workers. The personal assistant, to a large degree, has been taken over by $100 computer programs.

 

[Wyldfire]

Tell your professor that the study that shows that is bogus. It doesn't even compare the pay of men and women with the same education, same experience and same time put into the same employer. It compares all men and women as a whole. Of course men are going to earn more. Men don't take off time to have babies or work part time hours while their babies are small. The statistics from that stupid study just shows that men as a group earn more because men as a group work more hours. Feminists like to use the numbers to support their lie that women get discriminated in the workplace. Lies. It's illegal for an employer to pay a man more than a woman if they have the same education, experience and seniority in the company.

Statistics can be painted up in a way to show anything you want them to show. It's a shame that your professor isn't intelligent enough to realize that.

 

[Shiftkey]

Wyldfire, that was pretty much my entire arguement to my professor, and it did a pretty good job of shutting up him and the feminists in the class, but I'd still like some hard statistics to show him.

I can't wait to take his Gender and Politics class :trouble:

Statistics can be painted up in a way to show anything you want them to show. It's a shame that your professor isn't intelligent enough to realize that.

Oh he is, he just likes spouting off statistics to get a rise out of the class. He likes to take the possition of whatever we're discussing, but it's pretty obvious that he's a hardcore liberal (so maybe he isn't that smart afterall...). So his biases make him want to believe certain statistics. Our next chapter actually discusses how statistics can be manipulated.

 

[Wyldfire]

Wyldfire, that was pretty much my entire arguement to my professor, and it did a pretty good job of shutting up him and the feminists in the class, but I'd still like some hard statistics to show him.

I can't wait to take his Gender and Politics class :trouble:



Oh he is, he just likes spouting off statistics to get a rise out of the class. He likes to take the possition of whatever we're discussing, but it's pretty obvious that he's a hardcore liberal (so maybe he isn't that smart afterall...). So his biases make him want to believe certain statistics. Our next chapter actually discusses how statistics can be manipulated.

Back when I ran a Gender Issues forum a few years back (before I came here) I had seen the statistics you're looking for. I wish I could remember where I saw them. I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find them for you. It's so hard to find good sources to counter feminism anymore. Most of the men's rights sites come off just as psycho as radical feminist sites. No one takes material seriously that you find from a site that could qualify as a hate site or borderline hate site. I'll see if this antifeminist man who used to be a member of my forum still has his site up. Although he's a nutjob his site was usually somewhat reasonable.