Women do get paid less

>implying the pay gap is a myth
How does it feel to be a misogynist?

yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-battle-of-the-sexes/
blog.dol.gov/2012/06/07/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM
youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU
youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
youtube.com/watch?v=ZLVkMj_jsbc
yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-battle-of-the-sexes/
blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

They get paid less because they hold positions that are generally paid less.

And with good reason
> PROTIP: It's not because they're wimmenz.

youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM

wtf I hate men now

Skilled workers get paid more than people who clean toilets

Really makes you ponder the ramifications, huh?

If you look at all the money men make and all the money women make, then yes, men make more. Women, however, do NOT get paid less for doing the same job as a men.

Please find examples of women getting paid less than men for doing the same job at the same level or fuck off.

Click on the links.

fpbp

>work in almost NONE of the deadliest jobs
>tend to seek out less prestigious positions
>maternity

Of course they get fucking paid less

I mean copy and paste them. Oh boy I'm such a mess! :)

Wtf i hate capitalism now.

I did. The first one whines that women are less likely to get hired by some psych tier "study", and then says that women make less on average by field, not job. That's like saying "Men in medicine get paid more than women so men get paid more for doing the same job!" despite the fact that you got your salary data from 10 male doctors and 10 female nurses. It's complete bullshit that does not address my point.

The second article is complete bullshit that does the same thing of looking at gross income, citing a few psych surveys, and then failing to to give concrete numbers for the same job.

Those article cried about STEM a lot, so let's me give you an example. I'm a researcher in academia. There are male and female postdocs. The spread is incredibly even in my field, and male and female postdocs gets LITERALLY the same pay. That's how it works, if you're qualified to do the same job, then you get the same pay.

They get paid less as a whole but that is not taking into consideration career choices, only all work in general.

Of course you are going to make less money if you get a Liberal Arts or Women Studies degree compared to learning a Trade or getting a STEM degree.

"All of the applications sent out were identical, except for the fact that half were for a male applicant, John, and half were for a female applicant, Jennifer. Results showed that, with statistical significance, both male and female faculty at these institutions were biased towards male students over female students."

"...Data from the study shows that on average, science faculty was willing to pay the male applicant about $4,000 more per year."

nice blog, upvoted friendo

At every job I've ever had men and women were paid the same.

Cool, now where's the part where they show their actual methods and calculations? Where are the sample sizes, controls, institutions they sent out to, jobs they applied for that showed differences in pay, etc.

There's fucking nothing there.

(((Yale)))

have you ever made more than 12 bucks an hour?

Yes. My first job out of highschool I made $15 an hour. Now I have a high paying career. I make the same as my male counterparts.

youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU

>Economists generally attribute about 40% of the pay gap to discrimination – making about 60% explained by differences between workers or their jobs. However, even the “explained” differences between men and women might be more complicated. For example: If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn’t we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity?

This is where I stopped reading.

MEN CHOOSE SCIENCE BECAUSE MEN LIKE SCIENCE

WOMEN WILL NEVER, EVER BE AS INTERESTED IN STEM AS MEN

THIS IS BIOLOGICAL FUCKING DIFFERENCE

WATCH JUST 3 MINUTES OF THIS VIDEO FROM 22:20 TO 25:20 youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

Would you rather hire a male, someone who won't take material leave, taking your buisness moneybwith out work? Or a male, someone who is less likely to file a sexual harassment suit, leas likely to leave on material leave, more likely to work harder, less likely to bitch and more likely to get the job done, show initiative and have good working relationships with everyone.

True, had to google it.


"In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume."

gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

youtube.com/watch?v=ZLVkMj_jsbc

>lab manager
>lab fucking manager
That retardation aside, let's see the part where they controlled for the gender of the reviewing PI to account for whether or not PIs are more/less likely to hire someone of the same gender as themself for that particular position.

That's cute. Now refute what I posted.

I've had jobs where:
>they hire any woman who applies
>the women start at what guys who have been working there for a few yeas make (sometimes more)
>the women get their choice of days/hours over any of the men, and they'll even try to convince men to switch shifts to keep women who want their schedule and might quit if they don't
>they get away with murder
>they don't do their jobs as well or are not as knowledgeable about how to do their job or why it is the way it is
>they constantly come in late, leave early, call in sick, take days off
>they're usually terribly unmotivated next to most of the men
>they accept the job but literally cannot perform some of the physical requirements and men have to do it for them
>they cannot manage confrontation (customer service and security)
>they cannot get along well with their co-workers and try to create havoc or will complain about any tiny thing they dislike about their coworkers, always trying to kiss up to their superiors to get their co-workers fired (essentially every job I've ever held)

Women are awful human beings.
I've worked very hard to avoid some of the traps they've laid for other co-workers in the past with their shitty behavior and perspective on the world around them.
And they usually like me, even if I actually hate their guts for being dirty rotten cunts, or just fucking bad at their job.

And women change jobs faster than most men, often many times more.

wtf, I hate shoes now

You know companies are given a tax break for hiring women at higher pay rates than men?

Female scientists favored John.

let me ask somethin OP..... who much womens you know with like mining profetion?... or taxi drivers?... or construction?... crane operator?... truck driver?... train driver? (not metro).... em... warehouse assistant? AKA the guy with need get 300 kl in he back for charge that truck manually.... cleaner sewers?...

yi am not saying womens chose bad jobs, actually you see rigt now specially in the west a lot of wemans can do millions more that a average men, looks hillary clinton, they fundation do like 300 millions in two years, or the ghostbusters fiasco, that entire crew win a ton shit of money regards the failure of the movie.

stop this bushit and go back to SJW board faggot.

I agree. lets fucking break the gender pay gap once and for all! Women, go apply to be plumbers and electricians!

Oh wait, you're weak and lazy cunts :( go figure, those are the highest paying jobs! heh

I agree with this post, but why are both the male and female scientists favoring the male applicant over the female if they had the same resume?

>filename
>How does it feel to be a misogynist?

shit bait.

Can you quote the passage where this is said?

Any, my answer is this: if they are, who the fuck cares? In that video I linked, the whole premise of the documentary is that 90% of Norway's engineers are men, and 90% of its nurses are women - DESPITE the fact Norway is meant to be the most gender-equal country on Earth, and DESPITE the fact that there have been "equality initiatives"

What the documentary finds is that MEN ARE NATURALLY MORE INTERESTED IN STEM. That's just how it fucking is. So why try and force women to be something they're not?

I know that's not an answer that will satisfy SJWs, but I don't really care

"In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume."

>How does it feel to be a misogynist?
Feels good, man.
That SJW-shit will ruin your country, I swear.

Literally who even cares. You're exactly right, the hirers almost certainly WERE thinking subconsciously "he's a guy, he's probably going to be more capable, less emotional and give us less bullshit"

THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MEN ARE LIKE. IT'S FUCKING BIOLOGY

The sooner SJWism dies, the better

"Results showed that, with statistical significance, both male and female faculty at these institutions were biased towards male students over female students."

yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-battle-of-the-sexes/

>What the documentary finds is that MEN ARE NATURALLY MORE INTERESTED IN STEM. That's just how it fucking is. So why try and force women to be something they're not?

I agree, but that's not what is being argued here. The study is showing that even after the man and woman applied to the job with the exact same application, the man was favored.

Those bogus psychological experiments don't disproof anything. For any such thing you can usually find a study that says the complete opposite. This experiment shows that women are actually getting a bonus in interviews for being a women:

>Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!), masking gender had no effect on interview performance with respect to any of the scoring criteria (would advance to next round, technical ability, problem solving ability). If anything, we started to notice some trends in the opposite direction of what we expected: for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women.
blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/

Gender pay gap comes from different job choices, not from some invisible patriarchical conspiracy that supresses women without anyone noticing. This can be shown by comparing fields and work hours and no experiments will change those numbers.

Pay differences in highly qualified fields and management can additionally be explained by the bigger amount of high IQ males, due to higher standard deviation in male intelligence, so there is no point im showing pay differences normalised in those fields.

Lastly, even if such a gap would actually exist and be product of uncoscious discrimination, you have no moral right to intrude into personal freedom to restrict how much someone spends for someone elses work, especially since those rules would enforce actual gender based discrimination by law in many cases. A man would not be accepted for a job for the simple fact that he is a male.

As I said here - - there probably is bias in the selection process. Good. Men are more interested in science and more likely to do a good job of it, on average.

Sounds like the patriarchy's fault to me

When women want to slog their guts out plumbing, sparkling, laying bricks or digging foundations then they can earn £1000 a week like the rest of us tradesMEN.

Until then they can froth some milk for my expensice coffee for minimum wage.

>Liberal Arts or Women Studies degree
What job can you even get with such degree? oh i work full-time liberal from 5 to 9?

equal pay for equal work, not equal pay per person

Totally internalized mysoginy. After all, women are not able to think for themselves, at least according to feminists.

Women are faggot and anyone should pat whatever they want, American is land of the free, not anti-discrimination. pay gap is still a myth though.

...

Mechanical engineer here. In my exp women get paid MORE for LESS work in the field of engineering. Companies are so eager to hire terrible women engineers and I don't know why. Do they get a tax break or something?

>Do they get a tax break or something?
Quotas. Hiring quotas are diametrically opposed to the idea of meritocracy.

If you can name an instance where men are paid more than women, for the same work (as well as having the exact same qualifications and experience), congratulations. You've proven one instance of what is claimed to be a society wide problem. Don't you feel special, now?

Economists almost universally condemn the wage gap being based on discrimination to be a myth. It's a product of choices for the most part. And studies demonstrate this to be largely true. With that aside, you also have to consider that men work longer hours than men. Studies show that men working full time hours still put in 5 more hours a week than their female counter parts. Lets also not forget that feminists even fully admit that women don't negotiate better wages as well as men do.

How stupid and blind do you have to be to still believe what unemployed screaming tumblr harpies tell you?

You must choose between 2 applicants for a position in your company.
They are both completely identical in education, certification, experience, etc.

The only difference is that about once every 2 years, one of them will be unable to come in to work for months at a time and you will have to continue paying their salary during this time. Not only will you not have access to their skills during this time, but you will also have to hire and pay another employee to cover the same position. And since it is only a temporary fill-in it is difficult to find temps with the needed skillset who only want to work for a few months instead of a full-time job.

Which employee are you more likely to choose?

It's an EARNINGS gap not a wage gap or a pay gap. An EARNINGS gap. They don't work the same, so they don't earn the same. You fucking retard.

> There are male and female postdocs. The spread is incredibly even in my field.

Then you are in the wrong field. Should have done a PhD in something meaningful. Your fault.

Understandable discrimination is still discrimination.

And who the fuck pops out a kid every two years, that's ridiculous and not based on reality when the lifetime birth rate is around two kids per woman.

Well yeah you get shit degrees you're gonna get a shit job, and woman are pros at getting useless degress.

Statistics show they actually earn more than men of the same age in my country.

I demand reparations for the reverse pay gap created by feminism!

>Should have done a PhD in something meaningful.
Biomedical research isn't meaningful?

Wtf, I hate science now

There is literally nothing wrong with discrimination.

But don't you see those workers are oppressed! They're paid less because they're women or brown. The only solution is communism! Don't you mansplain number and facts to me neither.

Even Hillary Clinton's dickbag companies agree women are paid more.

>Making an educated fiscally sound decision is a bad thing if it hurts people's feelings

Cool, so you have no problem with affirmative action or when people don't want you anywhere near kids because you're male.

Post a link to some of your papers and we'll see. I'm willing to washer you're working on some kind of stay-hard cream for Great Danes, like most of the talentless math-deprived fuckwits in your discipline.

> Hiring decisions only affect feelings and not anyone's ability to make a living

yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-battle-of-the-sexes/

I would really like to see some stats on spending. Maybe there's a #spendgap just the other way around.

>Hiring decisions are the sole cause of people's ability to make a living, their personal choices during their employment somewhere has zero relevance.

There's a price gap, female versions of products tend to cost more, with clothing being the exception.

> identical resumes
> identical

Did you read the first link in the OP?

>Posting personal information on Sup Forums
Yeah I'm not about to post anything that could identify me directly here. If you want to know what I work on, it's cancer immunotherapy. You seem like a buttblasted mathfag who thinks pure mathematics is best, physics that involves computations is acceptable, and anything else is worthless. My lab gets more funding than yours and BE uses plenty of (useful) math, get over it.

>Being dumb enough to pay for something because it's pink or has flowers means there is descrimination

Wew, that patriarchy is crafty. I can't believe it physically forces women to purchase more expensive products. Damn the patriarchy.

Women get paid less because they spend the majority of their work day not working. They flit around the office 'visiting' their fellow female co-workers and chatting about their relationships over raspberry mint tea.

>completely missing the point
Or were you just moving the goal posts?

Stuff is usually in separate sections of stores so you need to be aware of this and check specifically.

But I'm sure you always check the women's section before you buy something, and you would buy pink underwear and a pink car if it was cheaper, my bad.

This is about hiring decisions, you talk about shit people do on the job, which is AFTER being hired.

Yes, I don't see your point.

I actually would, who gives a fuck, you can paint a car and underwear color is irrelevant. Also, I hear this "pink tax" bullshit everywhere but see no evidence of it in the real world.

If you get off Sup Forums and go to work many you get paid more? Here is my $0.02

Ivanka said it best (and Sup Forums reacted like retards, though some people were smart about it), when she said the only gap is an earnings gap caused by women leaving their jobs to have or take care of kids. We do need laws to help support child rearing.

I'm thankful that my company voluntarily has rules in place that let parents take a leave for 6 weeks after a child is born or adopted in order to help raise them. This leave applies to men and women, so its also fair for both sexes.

The inability for people to take paid time off to rear their children causes a situation where only poor unemployed people can have kids, and this mostly means hispanics and blacks.

If you support the white race, you should support parent leaves.

>Understanding what people will do once hired shouldn't factor into hiring them or not.

How old are you?

/thread

Painting a car costs money, so you admit that you would pay extra to have a not-pink car.

You don't care about underwear color because nobody ever sees those, but you would if you thought there was any chance of getting laid in the future.

Men and women aren't equal, so why should they be treated equally? It doesn't make sense to pay men the same as women, when men do better jobs.

Not gonna lie, that's pretty neat stuff, user.

Fuck off, the poorly documented and controlled """studies""" you're posting are an insult to the already hurting industry of scientific research.

Work less, get paid less. That's how it's supposed to work.

>women don't negotiate better wages as well as men do

Yeah, based on discrimination.

When you're hiring a woman, you have no idea if she's going to have (more) kids or not, but she gets less money based on something she has no control over. Even if she's sterile.

It's a problem that's pretty easy to fix - just give fathers time off, too.

But I bet you don't like that because you see nothing wrong with women being disadvantaged for shit they have no control over.

I'm sorry that the link made you mad, user.

Be woman with same application, get paid less. That's how it's supposed to work.

Still zero fucks to give on the underwear at all, and again, you are moving the goal posts, if a hot pink car was less, I would buy it and paint it myself for less then buying the non pink car, if the difference in cost was a coat of paint then we're talking a benign amount of money anyway. Besides the car is a bad point of comparison since car sales are negotiable anyway. What else you got?

Everyone knows women do shitty jobs and get pregnant. Nothing wrong with taking that into account and favoring men. If that's illegal, we need to change the law.

Women could be at a disadvantage because all things accounted for, they still have the possibility of maternity leave, which is a risk to the employer, yes. That's a problem that lies in American maternity leave laws, not inherent sexism. I've always found them to be shitty for both sides, because as a man if my wife has a kid then I want her to be able to work and take time off without losing her job, and I want my job to offer time off to care for the baby as well. Good thing this got brought up during the RNC as something Trump will work on.

Yes, links to bad "science" make me mad as an actual scientist.

HR MANAGERS HATE HIM

...

Because deep down they know how much a pain in the ass women are. All the drama and complaining. Not mention maternity leave.

Ok, tough guy. Why is it so bad?

Germany has that option, and if both parents take leave they get more combined time off than if just one of them does it.

It costs money since the government pays, but I really like it anyway. New fathers get to spend time with their kids, and it takes away some of the incentive employers have to prefer men.

It's real, but the reasons are not political. Women suck at negotiating a wage than men.