this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
629 points (94.7% liked)

solarpunk memes

2594 readers
487 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

no, it isn’t

"When the BLS reports that women working full-time in 2020 earned 82.3% of what men earned working full-time, that is very much different from saying that women earned 82.3% of what men earned for doing exactly the same work while working the exact same number of hours in the same occupation, with exactly the same educational background and exactly the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and with exactly the same marital and family (e.g., number of children) status....once we start controlling individually for the many relevant factors that affect earnings, e.g., hours worked, age, marital status, and having children, most of the raw earnings differential disappears."

Done with your ignorant "nuh uh" garbage. Go ahead and cling to your misogyny boogeyman, you're clearly more interested in maintaining your own assumptions and biases, than the truth. This nonsense is literally equivalent to the creationist "god of the gaps" fallacious argument, where any empty spot in the evolutionary record is assumed by the creationist to be 'God did it, right there'. Then, whenever we find a transitional fossil Z between X and Y, suddenly God's role is no longer between X and Y, but between X and Z, and Z and Y, ad infinitum.

The bottom line is that there is literally zero evidence that any statistically-significant portion of the gap between the sexes' average early earnings IS caused by sexism. This is just something people like you assume, because you're too simple-minded to consider that a difference in outcome between two demographics could be caused by anything but bigotry toward one of them. And it's another level of simple-mindedness to continue to cling to that assumption even after you've been made aware of well over a dozen factors that account for various chunks of the gap, making it clear that 'turns out there can in fact be other reasons for this disparity to exist'. The misogyny 'God' in that ever-shrinking gap--the straw you cling to constantly shortening. Ideologue narrative-clinging is pitiable.

I'm not going to entertain your "prove it's not" nonsense, that's not how it works. Enjoy your delusional boogeyman hunt, I guess.

P.S. Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality? Like Saudi Arabia, where women only recently became legally allowed to drive, and Egypt, which has the second highest rate of sexual harassment on Earth. Whoops, another massive wrench in your delusional assumption, how about that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Done with your ignorant "nuh uh" garbage

ah yes because you're backing up everything you say with sources, and not just spouting shit

this is the first time you've tried to cite something to back yourself up, and the thing you chose to cite agrees with me.

"most of the raw earnings differential": you know that "most" doesn't mean "all", right?

so what we have here is you saying something that's wrong, me telling you it's wrong, you proving to both of us that it's wrong, and then you complaining that i'm telling you it's wrong

I'm not going to entertain your "prove it's not" nonsense, that's not how it works

either you're utterly inept enough to get burden of proof completely ass-backwards, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it here because you're arguing in bad faith

obviously i wouldn't accuse you of being utterly inept because it would be rude so i would ask that you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the high standards set by the rest of your "wage gap is a myth" folks

to clarify: you're making the claim that women are genetically predisposed to behave in a certain way, so it's you who gets to back that up

Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality?

i'm pretty sure i know the exact study you're citing (well not citing, vaguely gesturing towards) which is why i'm so confident that it's nonsense

if it's the one i'm thinking of, they completely misuse a statistical indicator so badly that they literally invert the trend in their data

 

i'll make this really simple for you. you need to make a convincing case that either:

  • our social system doesn't typically expect the bulk of childcare to fall on women
  • the bulk of childcare falling on one parent over the other doesn't impact the amount of flexibility that parent has in their schedule

otherwise, we've just demonstrated systemic sexism present in the wage gap

(i know you won't reply to this because you know that you can't make that convincing case; this is more for the benefit of future viewers)