The Gender Pay Gap

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

I know - right?  Clearly it's the postings that are important - not who actually gets hired

Well government hires purely based on a structured interview with points.

You are suggesting in private they will hire males and ignore a more qualified female who would bring more profits to the company?

Maybe my experiences in private enterprise are weird because from my experiences it's cut throat and whoever makes them the most money and/or who works for the cheapest survives.

I think you are stuck in the 50's because in modern times it's all about the money. 

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

Well government hires purely based on a structured interview with points.

You are suggesting in private they will hire males and ignore a more qualified female who would bring more profits to the company?

Maybe my experiences in private enterprise are weird because from my experiences it's cut throat and whoever makes them the most money and/or who works for the cheapest survives.

I think you are stuck in the 50's because in modern times it's all about the money. 

Profit in the school system? 

[kelownabomberfan]

6 hours ago, Mark H. said:

I know - right?  Clearly it's the postings that are important - not who actually gets hired

Who gets hired has nothing to do with a pay gap.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

7 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Who gets hired has nothing to do with a pay gap.

And this is why you argument is fatally flawed- you are making a very difficult and complex issue- into a 1 dimensional, trivial yes or no. 

[kelownabomberfan]

52 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

And this is why you argument is fatally flawed- you are making a very difficult and complex issue- into a 1 dimensional, trivial yes or no. 

Not really. What is happening here, and no one has actually shown anything to the contrary  is that this is a completely imaginary and invented "problem" and call it "difficult and complex" when it really isn't.  As I have said many times, all of the "difficult and complexers" here should watch the video in the OP. And give me your opinions. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by kelownabomberfan

[JCon]

On 2019-01-25 at 12:35 PM, JCon said:

I suppose you can start here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0095399716636928

Then, you can read all the papers they cite. Then you can go through Google Scholar to see everything that has been peer reviewed and published.

I think you'll be astonished that despite working for 30 years, it does not make you an expert (or even informed) on the gender pay gap that exists.

 

13 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Not really. What is happening here, and no one has actually shown anything to the contrary  is that this is a completely imaginary and invented "problem" and call it "difficult and complex" when it really isn't.  As I have said many times, all of the "difficult and complexers" here should watch the video in the OP. And give me your opinions. 

No, you just choose to be ignorant. Or, is it something else? 

 

I saw this the other day and thought of you and the other deniers. It's convenient to ignore and deny things because it might actually hurt you. It's the same thing in the climate change thread. 

https://www.macleans.ca/society/love-makes-the-world-go-flat/

If you want to believe in goofy faux-science theories—from the flat earth to cupping—it’s pretty easy nowadays to find a like-minded friend

 

That's exactly what this is. Ignorance and hate. 

 

Jordan Peterson, the white supremacist, was used to defend your position. Pretty much sums up the whole argument right there. 

[kelownabomberfan]

14 hours ago, Mark H. said:

I'm beyond incredulous on this topic. Of course that is an example of gender pay gap.  

Mark just as incredulous as you are, I am just as incredulous that you think the example you gave is "an example of the gender pay gap". It isn't. Not even close.  What are are starting is a make believe "issue" that is unfortunately causing real world consequences, and actual gender discrimination. 

For example, my friend that teaches high level math and engineering is super frustrated because he says it is basically impossible to fail any of his female students. All post graduate scholarships are going to female students, despite their grades being sub-par and artificially supported, and despite many more deserving candidates with much higher grades, who have made the cardinal sin of having a penis. He says that this is going on across Canada. Is this fair? Is this right? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to an imaginary problem?

14 hours ago, Mark H. said:

But when I cite an example from the teaching profession, of administrators more often being male, you just dismiss it.

I talked to my parents, who both were teachers, and asked them about this horrible situation of male dominated admin in the Manitoba teaching profession.  Both of them didn't know what you were talking about, and my mom was quite offended that anyone would need to "help" her get an job in admin, just because she is a woman. They both agreed that this sounded like a completely invented problem.

14 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Here, you have cited the exact same thing: not a difference in pay, but a difference in opportunity, which leads to a pay gap.

And if we really going to talk about "difference of opportunity", why is it ok to limit the opportunity of males to get scholarships and join the RCMP? Why is actual discrimination a "solution" to fake discrimination? This just makes no sense, and just seems inherently wrong.

[kelownabomberfan]

16 minutes ago, JCon said:

 

No, you just choose to be ignorant. Or, is it something else? 

The only ignorance being demonstrated here seems to be coming from those that choose to believe that something exists without having any proof whatsoever.  That's the very definition of ignorance. 

Quote

 

 

That's exactly what this is. Ignorance and hate. 

And here you go, Godwinning the thread. You are one step away from going full Hitler. Why do people get so worked up when apparent "truths" they have swallowed wholesale without proof get questioned? What are you so afraid of? And going to the "hate" well just shows that you have lost the argument. 

Quote

 

Jordan Peterson, the white supremacist, was used to defend your position. Pretty much sums up the whole argument right there. 

Jordan Peterson is not a white supremacist.  That's just garbage. If he is then someone should tell the First Nations who he has done so much work for and helped.  Having to reach with a giant lie like this in desperation pretty much sums up the whole argument right there.

Whoever told you this nonsense about Peterson is scared, and doesn'twant you to see the bigger picture, or bother to think. You really need to de-friend them immediately. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by kelownabomberfan

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Not really. What is happening here, and no one has actually shown anything to the contrary  is that this is a completely imaginary and invented "problem" and call it "difficult and complex" when it really isn't.  As I have said many times, all of the "difficult and complexers" here should watch the video in the OP. And give me your opinions. 

People have shown you many things to the contrary- you just choose to ignore them. 

 

[pigseye]

13 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

People have shown you many things to the contrary- you just choose to ignore them. 

 

And the research shows that the gap is only 5-6% and it's only speculation that it could be gender discrimination and/or unwillingness to negotiate salary.

Let me ask you a question, if you are an employer and have two equally qualified candidates, one male the other female and the female is willing to take 5% less in salary than the male, who you gonna hire? In the pure business sense, you hire the one that costs you less, maybe the SJW's just have a problem with business as usual? Because I don't see any argument for anything else.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

The only ignorance being demonstrated here seems to be coming from those that choose to believe that something does or does not exists without reading or acknowledging any proof to the contrary that has been provided whatsoever.  That's the very definition of ignorance. 

That is exactly what you are doing. 

 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

And here you go, Godwinning the thread. You are one step away from going full Hitler.   

"Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)^[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";^[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends."

 

Well done- you beat them to the punch. 

 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Jordan Peterson is not a white supremacist.  That's just garbage. If he is then someone should tell the First Nations who he has done so much work for and helped.  Having to reach with a giant lie like this in desperation pretty much sums up the whole argument right there.

Who like Murray SInclair?

 

 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Whoever told you this nonsense about Peterson is scared, and doesn't want you to see the bigger picture, or bother to think. You really need to de-friend them immediately. 

Wow- jordan peterson, milo yiannopoulos and mark shouldice- you really should look them up before you defend them and berate those that are critical of them. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Logan007]

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

That is exactly what you are doing. 

 

"Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)^[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";^[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends."

 

Well done- you beat them to the punch. 

 

Who like Murray SInclair?

 

 

Wow- jordan peterson, milo yiannopoulos and mark shouldice- you really should look them up before you defend them and berate those that are critical of them. 

Apparently you take everything at face value and don't look into what the tweet meant.  Did you happen to read the explanation behind why he said another Indian stole his bottle?

 

 

You people are really sad to attack Jordan Peterson.  What you're saying is slander.  He's not a white supremacist, like AT ALL.  And I'm sure KBF has watched and read many things on him as have I.  Maybe it's YOU who needs to look them up in a biased way instead of just reading stupid tweets about him and judging him that way.  He's an incredibly intelligent and open minded guy if you actually listen to him.  But I doubt you'll do that because you'd rather just label him as you already have and want to see him as some "evildoer".  I'm sure you probably think the Jewish Ben Shapiro is a white supremacist nazi too.

Sometimes some of you people make me sad at the lack of open mindedness you have.  You spout off about Feminism and accepting of LBGT community, etc... yet you close your minds down at anything that goes against those far left beliefs.

And those of you who are bringing Climate Change into this thread.  All you're trying to do is discredit KBF and whoever else by bringing up something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Usually people do that when they are losing an argument.

 

Uggh...I didn't want to post in this thread, but your comments are turning into such BS that I couldn't stay out.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, Logan007 said:

Apparently you take everything at face value and don't look into what the tweet meant.  Did you happen to read the explanation behind why he said another Indian stole his bottle?

 

 

You people are really sad to attack Jordan Peterson.  What you're saying is slander.  He's not a white supremacist, like AT ALL.  And I'm sure KBF has watched and read many things on him as have I.  Maybe it's YOU who needs to look them up in a biased way instead of just reading stupid tweets about him and judging him that way.  He's an incredibly intelligent and open minded guy if you actually listen to him.  But I doubt you'll do that because you'd rather just label him as you already have and want to see him as some "evildoer".  I'm sure you probably think the Jewish Ben Shapiro is a white supremacist nazi too.

Sometimes some of you people make me sad at the lack of open mindedness you have.  You spout off about Feminism and accepting of LBGT community, etc... yet you close your minds down at anything that goes against those far left beliefs.

And those of you who are bringing Climate Change into this thread.  All you're trying to do is discredit KBF and whoever else by bringing up something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Usually people do that when they are losing an argument.

 

Uggh...I didn't want to post in this thread, but your comments are turning into such BS that I couldn't stay out.

I will go and give him a fair shake and check him out. 

 

Agreed, maybe he's not, but when you lump him in with Mark should've and Milo, and that tweet from Murray- I did jump to conclusions. 

That tweet though., was racist.

[Logan007]

45 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I will go and give him a fair shake and check him out. 

 

Agreed, maybe he's not, but when you lump him in with Mark should've and Milo, and that tweet from Murray- I did jump to conclusions. 

That tweet though., was racist.

Technically it's not.  The lady at the bar wanted to be called an Indian and not a Native American.  So blame her for him calling her what she asked him to call her.

People complained when he wouldn't call trans people by their made up pronoun, and now they're complaining when he calls someone the name of the race she wants to be called and everyone is triggered by it because most Natives don't like the being called that.  It's like the whole Edmonton Eskimo's thing.  Most Inuit's don't care if they use the term, there's only a very small minority who do, but SJW's come out of the woodwork to defend the small minority because VICTIMS!

But if you were to see what he said as an outsider, I can understand why people would think he was being racist.

[kelownabomberfan]

Here's Jordan Peterson versus an American protagonist who thinks that he is debating a right -wing American and doesn't realize that he's debating an open-minded Canadian with a long track record of close friendship with the First Nations in Canada. Needless to say that this person ends up looking incredibly foolish,  as does anyone who just accepts the alt-left version of "facts". Calling Jordan Peterson a white supremacist is just plain ignorant, as this guy quickly finds out.

 

[kelownabomberfan]

7 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

Who like Murray SInclair?

I am surprised that Murray Sinclair would besmirch himself and his reputation by lowering himself to this level. That is indeed unfortunate. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

27 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I am surprised that Murray Sinclair would besmirch himself and his reputation by lowering himself to this level. That is indeed unfortunate. 

Why? he is voicing his opinion and how he was offended. Is that not his right? I fail to see that as "besmirching" his reputation.

 

3 hours ago, Logan007 said:

 complaining when he calls someone the name of the race she wants to be called and everyone is triggered by it because most Natives don't like the being called that.  It's like the whole Edmonton Eskimo's thing.  Most Inuit's don't care if they use the term, there's only a very small minority who do, but SJW's come out of the woodwork to defend the small minority because VICTIMS!

But if you were to see what he said as an outsider, I can understand why people would think he was being racist.

 You know that Murray Sinclair is Aboriginal right...? 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

 

 

 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

I watched that Jim Jeffries hit piece and had to turn it off. A perfect example of alternative facts.

[kelownabomberfan]

19 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Why? he is voicing his opinion and how he was offended. Is that not his right? I fail to see that as "besmirching" his reputation.

It was totally besmirching his reputation because he was slandering a fellow Canadian and big supporter of Canadian aboriginals based on blatantly false information.  It made him look extremely silly. And you would think a Canadian senator would want to avoid looking silly.

19 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

 You know that Murray Sinclair is Aboriginal right...? 

All the more reason he shouldn't be tweeting nonsense about an FA supporter being racist. Shame on him indeed.

[kelownabomberfan]

But back to the gender pay gap. Still we have yet to see any evidence that it exists. We have seen attacks on people who say it doesn't exist, and the invocation of the word "hate". I think that this word does come into play in this discussion,  but in a total opposite way.

I think there definitely is some hate here, towards a certain gender, and this is what is allowing the tolerance of actual discrimination to combat fake discrimination.  Instead of misogyny,  we have blatant misandry. And that just is wrong.

[kelownabomberfan]

8 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

Wow- jordan peterson, milo yiannopoulos and mark shouldice- you really should look them up before you defend them and berate those that are critical of them. 

In Jordan Peterson's own words:

"Easier just to call anyone who calls out extremism on the left a fascist. Easier, but not helpful, and also indicative of refusal to draw a necessary line. Let’s call it willful blindness and leave it at that."

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

55 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I watched that Jim Jeffries hit piece and had to turn it off. A perfect example of alternative facts.

Kelly Anne Conway now?  Why are you quoting a serial liar now?

 

Anyways I don't see anything that is.... "fake news" or "alternative facts" please let me know What to look out for. I am not too familiar with Jordan's schitck.  

 

I thoughtful was a pretty funny segment. C'mon - you didn't find the airhorn in the protest students face funny? That was comedic gold.

 

And I totally respect Jordan more, after that clip where he admits that he was wrong about the gay wedding cake. It was refreshing to watch some state an opinion... listen to what someone else has to say... and is open minded to change their stance on something.

 

 

[Mark H.]

11 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Mark just as incredulous as you are, I am just as incredulous that you think the example you gave is "an example of the gender pay gap". It isn't. Not even close.  What are are starting is a make believe "issue" that is unfortunately causing real world consequences, and actual gender discrimination. 

For example, my friend that teaches high level math and engineering is super frustrated because he says it is basically impossible to fail any of his female students. All post graduate scholarships are going to female students, despite their grades being sub-par and artificially supported, and despite many more deserving candidates with much higher grades, who have made the cardinal sin of having a penis. He says that this is going on across Canada. Is this fair? Is this right? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to an imaginary problem?

I talked to my parents, who both were teachers, and asked them about this horrible situation of male dominated admin in the Manitoba teaching profession.  Both of them didn't know what you were talking about, and my mom was quite offended that anyone would need to "help" her get an job in admin, just because she is a woman. They both agreed that this sounded like a completely invented problem.

And if we really going to talk about "difference of opportunity", why is it ok to limit the opportunity of males to get scholarships and join the RCMP? Why is actual discrimination a "solution" to fake discrimination? This just makes no sense, and just seems inherently wrong.

1. I'm not familiar with your math teacher friend's situation, but I do agree that if that is happening, it is most definitely wrong.

2. The facts are the facts.  The teaching profession consists of approx. 75% women, 25% men.  Yet, at the admin level, it's 60% men, 40% women.  

3. I agree that the RCMP situation is discrimination and should not be happening.

 

 

[Mark H.]

On 2019-02-08 at 8:57 AM, kelownabomberfan said:

Not really. What is happening here, and no one has actually shown anything to the contrary  is that this is a completely imaginary and invented "problem" and call it "difficult and complex" when it really isn't.  As I have said many times, all of the "difficult and complexers" here should watch the video in the OP. And give me your opinions. 

Okay, the lady in the video makes the following key points, which I will summarize:

1. Companies employ more men in higher positions

2. If women want to be paid more, they need to apply for those higher positions

3. Yes, women are discriminated against in the workplace

4. We need to teach young women to have to the confidence to apply for higher paying jobs

5. Women are being discriminated against only because they allowed themselves to be

6. None of the above have anything to do with gender

This leads me to several pointed questions:

1. How can anything possibly be that simple? 

2. If women are allowing themselves to be discriminated against - how is she so sure it has nothing to do with their gender?   

3. How does she know that women aren't applying for those higher positions?