Where Is The Female Red Pill Movement?

[JeanLucBB]

Sick, I can finally add person #3 to my ignore list.

Good idea. More time for you to white knight to impress women on the internet you'll never meet and would find you pathetic.

 

[redpilled]

You can correct for part-time and full-time positions in the underlying data. Of course you cannot have fully apples-to-apples comparisons but there is a limit to how granular data can get.

From the very source (ONS) these statistics come from:-

• more women work in lower paid jobs or sectors.
  
• women are more likely to work part-time, which can mean a lower rate of pay.
  
• women are under-represented in senior roles. This may be due to stereotypical attitudes about gender roles, lack of flexible working or women taking time to look after their family.

It's there in black and white. Women choose lower paid jobs. They are more likely to work part-time. There's a suggestion that stereotypical attitudes might mean they are hired less in senior roles, but it's conjecture and they state that it simply might be down to women looking after their family more and having less time for such roles. The ONS sum up the reality of the aggregate wage gap.

Sick, I can finally add person #3 to my ignore list.

Leaving the debate so soon? Are you not interested in facts?

 

[Dante92]

From the very source (ONS) these statistics come from:-

It's there in black and white. Women choose lower paid jobs. They are more likely to work part-time. There's a suggestion that stereotypical attitudes might mean they are hired less in senior roles, but it's conjecture and they state that it simply might be down to women looking after their family more and having less time for such roles. The ONS sum up the reality of the aggregate wage gap.



Leaving the debate so soon? Are you not interested in facts?

Some users here are too entitled to be interested in such trivial, unimportant things such as undeniable facts, their opinion is much more valuable.

 

[pjhair]

You can correct for part-time and full-time positions in the underlying data. Of course you cannot have fully apples-to-apples comparisons but there is a limit to how granular data can get.

That's a very important piece of the puzzle though. We do need to compare hourly wages of women to man at the same job position with the same years of experience and expertise to draw accurate conclusion about the gender pay gap. From what I have seen in my own role, females make just as much as males for the same number of hours worked. But I work with very few females so the sample size is too small.

 

[redpilled]

When you speak about a worldwide phenomenon like feminism and portray it's image that's only accurate when you look at a minority population in the world, you should be called out. There are feminists living in Muslim countries and fighting Islamist at a great danger to their lives. If you had only lived in the west, I probably would have not said anything. But you have lived in Thailand. You must know better. I just wanted you to be more precise and accurate in your criticism. Instead of admitting that you were not very precise when you attacked feminism and tried to paint it with a broad brush in your first post, you chose the strategy of attacking my argument and calling it "ridiculous" and "weak". I should have known better. Not everyone is going to be as precise and accurate as Afro_Vacancy when they lay their argument.

If I am to take your line of thinking, I could equally say "you can't just focus on women having it bad in Islamic countries when women in non-Islamic countries have it good - you have to remember that the majority of women don't live in Islamic countries" (strictly speaking, this is true). If someone's going to highlight the problems that women face in Islamic countries by starting a thread about it, anyone coming up with "well, other women have it good in non-Islamic countries!" argument is going to sound silly. That's what you're doing here. You're saying it's impossible to separate distinct groups of the world population and just talk about one group. I can't talk about how hard Japanese salarymen work, because Amazonian tribes only hunt for one hour a day.

Stop it - it's silly.

 

[redpilled]

I was blocking a certain screaming Frenchman.

I tried to find some comparable data to my local source and came across this, which pretty unequivocally spells out what I've said here:

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-pay-gap

The difference is less stark but it's there. In certain industries like O&G it can be as high as 9%.

From your source, it says that a "controlled" look at wages show women earn 98% of what men earn - "controlled" meaning (word for word what they state) : "similar men and women in similar jobs". Similar skills in similar jobs - not the same, but similar....so fuzzy enough to account for a 2% gap. In fact, we would need to know how they define "similar" anyway. This is highly equivocal and that's the best "proof" you have there's a systemic, serious and discriminatory wage gap that women are suffering from? Oh, and you DID say that you believe that women are paid less in like-for-like jobs, yet there's still no proof being offered.

 

[pjhair]

If I am to take your line of thinking, I could equally say "you can't just focus on women having it bad in Islamic countries when women in non-Islamic countries have it good - you have to remember that the majority of women don't live in Islamic countries" (strictly speaking, this is true)

What? Are you serious dude? What kind of silly reasoning is that? You made a general claim about feminists. If someone makes a general claims like "women have it good" or "women have it bad" then it's perfectly legitimate to ask that which specific group of women that this claim applies. That's precisely what I did. Your mental gymnastics aren't going to make your initial mistake go away/

You're saying it's impossible to separate distinct groups of the world population and just talk about one group .

No, that's not what I said. Re read our exchange. I just asked you to SPECIFY the group you were speaking of as feminism is a worldwide phenomenon.

Anyway, it's 5 am in the night and I am too sleepy to continue this futile discussion. Have a good day(or night).

 

[JeanLucBB]

From your source, it says that a "controlled" look at wages show women earn 98% of what men earn - "controlled" meaning (word for word what they state) : "similar men and women in similar jobs". Similar skills in similar jobs - not the same, but similar....so fuzzy enough to account for a 2% gap. In fact, we would need to know how they define "similar" anyway. This is highly equivocal and that's the best "proof" you have there's a systemic, serious and discriminatory wage gap that women are suffering from? Oh, and you DID say that you believe that women are paid less in like-for-like jobs, yet there's still no proof being offered.

If it was plausible that women were being paid less in like-for-like jobs, companies would cease hiring men entirely, and just hire the cheap women to do the same job as efficiently and for a lower price.

 

[redpilled]

What? Are you serious dude? What kind of silly reasoning is that? You made a general claim about feminists. If someone makes a general claims like "women have it good" or "women have it bad" then it's perfectly legitimate to ask that which specific group of women that this claim applies. That's precisely what I did. Your mental gymnastics aren't going to make your initial mistake go away/



No, that's not what I said. Re read our exchange. I just asked you to SPECIFY the group you were speaking of as feminism is a worldwide phenomenon.

Anyway, it's 5 am in the night and I am too sleepy to continue this futile discussion. Have a good day(or night).

You asked me aa while ago in this thread, and I explicitly said "in the west", then you continued on with "yeah, but women in Islamic countries have it bad". Maybe I need to say it twice...I am talking about western countries.

 

[redpilled]

If it was plausible that women were being paid less in like-for-like jobs, companies would cease hiring men entirely, and just hire the cheap women to do the same job as efficiently and for a lower price.

Exactly. Business is hard enough that employers aren't going to miss out on a chance to pay their staff significantly less than they need to.

 

[redpilled]

At an aggregate level, that's certainly significant enough to warrant attention in my opinion.

Again, it depends what they mean by "similar". You can only really compare the SAME positions.

 

[redpilled]

All these dislikes.. feeling pretty good about this thread so far.

View attachment 56062

To be fair, that made me smile. Sorry for the like

 

[Dante92]

All these dislikes.. feeling pretty good about this thread so far.

View attachment 56062

Said the guy who put me on ignore for daring to give him his first dislike and for not "undisliking" it.

 

[JeanLucBB]

How about the female sex shops of anne summers on every high steet in the UK yet men are not allowed ONE PAGE in the sun newspaper. Female sexuality is celebrated at every turn while male sexuality is ridiculed and scorned. They can have WHIPS AND HANDCUFFS on display in shop windows for children to view yet we can't even say "hello" to a woman without risk of being branded a sexual pervert.

You simply have to be an idiot to say that women are not equal and don't have it easy in our society

There is a lack of balance on issues like this because quite simply; both genders are different. Let the free market do its thing and accept that differences are to be celebrated. Does anyone want to see N5s flaunting their sexuality on billboards? No they don't.

The free market and legal freedoms sort these issues out, affirmative action is the same misogynistic approach as in the Islamic world of people deciding what a woman can achieve and what her responsibilities are.

 

[Medina]

There is a lack of balance on issues like this because quite simply; both genders are different. Let the free market do its thing and accept that differences are to be celebrated. Does anyone want to see N5s flaunting their sexuality on billboards? No they don't.

The free market and legal freedoms sort these issues out, affirmative action is the same misogynistic approach as in the Islamic world of people deciding what a woman can achieve and what her responsibilities are.

Yes but the free market won't change the view that men are perverts just for being attracted to a woman or simply saying hello

While women celebrate their own sexuality to no end.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Yes but the free market won't change the view that men are perverts just for being attracted to a woman or simply saying hello

While they celebrate their own sexuality to no end.

Men are perverts. Let them celebrate.

 

[redpilled]

But to compare the SAME positions those positions have to be open to women...

The point's been made a few times already here....but if it's cheaper to hire a woman in a job position than it is a man, why on earth would an employer hire a man in that job position? Can anyone answer that? Given the brutal capitalist economics every company operates under, how is that employers are saying "nope, not gonna hire a cheaper, equally capable person. Instead I'm going to pay more money to someone else - who isn't going to do the job any better than the cheaper person". What employer thinks that way?

 

[redpilled]

Because they don't trust women abilities! Because they think men do the job better ! Because they fear the girl might want some kids, etc.

That's conjecture. How can you say for sure that employers en masse / in general think that way?

Women tend to earn MORE than men in their younger working years, then earn less from 30s onwards* - "because kids". Yes, you can argue about maternity leave (even though it's become much more equal now in terms of fathers being offered paternity leave as much as mothers being offered maternity leave) - but this is NOT pay discrimination which was brought up originally.

* https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-findsc

 

[JeanLucBB]

Because employers are not rational actors. They can have and do have biases which lead them to make choices not purely motivated by economic utility.

Going back to the genesis of the thread I'll reiterate my point that the genders each face their own bundle of problems. It's not that one clearly has it worse than the other. There are advantages and disadvantages to being a man or a woman.

And one thing that I believe which may not have been obvious from my earlier posts is that women's problems have had a higher share of voice in the mainstream than men's over the last few decades. I've seen signs of this changing though, with boys' problems getting more emphasis as of lately.

I think it's worrisome that divorced and otherwise scorned men turn to these antagonistic philosophies to make sense of the world. Women are our equals in imperfection. It is the tension between our differences and similarities that make them interesting companions and a meaningful part of our lives.

It has nothing to do with scorned men. I have a heathy sex life and am pro-feminism as a general rule, however fundamentally I am a realist, and the facts are not in your favour. You outright claimed yourself that the data did not fit your narrative, but that you believed your narrative so strongly that you were happy to make assumptions.

You are the one creating tension through false narratives, and if you admit the genders have fundamental differences, then how can you expect them to attain equal results in all regards?

 

[JeanLucBB]

Because employers are not rational actors. They can have and do have biases which lead them to make choices not purely motivated by economic utility.

Going back to the genesis of the thread I'll reiterate my point that the genders each face their own bundle of problems. It's not that one clearly has it worse than the other. There are advantages and disadvantages to being a man or a woman.

And one thing that I believe which may not have been obvious from my earlier posts is that women's problems have had a higher share of voice in the mainstream than men's over the last few decades. I've seen signs of this changing though, with boys' problems getting more emphasis as of lately.

I think it's worrisome that divorced and otherwise scorned men turn to these antagonistic philosophies to make sense of the world. Women are our equals in imperfection. It is the tension between our differences and similarities that make them interesting companions and a meaningful part of our lives.

And for someone who tries to act like a feminist, calling females "interesting companions" and a "meaningful part of OUR lives" is awfully sexist. Women are nothing but a tool to you to use for your delusional narrative and selfish quest for superficial and unearned moral superiority.