gender pay gap disproved about 30+ years ago

lol sorry hon, you're going to need more than one case of discrimination prove prove a gender-wide wage gap.

 

Oh my Gawd men are even allowed to consum a higher intake of calories per day than women. Oh my! Discrimination! Remove! Remove!

 

Considering the reality that I have never asserted as a fact that discrimination is the reason for any wage-gap you statement is irrelevant, evasion and the usual crap.

Whether it is one case or hundreds is irrelevant, you assertion of a fact has been shown to be a pile of horse crap, deal with it like an adult instead of like a petulant child.

 

im asserting that its not discrimination and you seem to have a problem with it. the FACT is there is no evidence of discrimination and until there is the wage gap is as mythical as bigfoot.

if it wasnt a fact there would be more than one case and it wouldnt be from 45 years since i was speaking in present tense.

 

The problem is that you have nothing to back up that assertion ergo it is no more valid than any other assertion presented to explain that 5% wage gap, the fact that you insist your assertion is a fact is a pile of horse (*)(*)(*)(*).

This is what is known as a moving the goalposts fallacy, look it up you might learn something.

 

there is no wage gap until there is evidence of a wage gap. =)

i know what moving the goal posts means, apparently you dont. again, one isolated incident doesnt indicate a gender-wide wage gap. sorry hon

 

That's is your opinion and you are entitled to it no matter how wrong it is.

Great then you should know that is exactly what you have done. You stated that there were no cases, I provided three such cases, then you moved the goalposts and changed your original assertion to more than one case, within a set time period speaking in present tense ... do you need reminding of the actual post.

I've even coloured it for you just to make it easier to read.

Here is what moving the goal posts fallacy is - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/130-moving-the-goal-posts

"Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument."

As I said a classic example of you moving the goalposts ... seems you don't actually know what it meant after all.

 

thats too bad that one lawsuit doesnt prove a gender gap. =( too bad for you

 

to bad you prove you are incapable of honest debate ... to bad for you that is.

 

it happens to males too so you're the one being dishonest. LOL better luck next time hon.

 

Wow, yet another attempt to place words into my mouth, please do show where I say it doesn't happen to males ... oh and btw you attempting to move the goalposts yet again. So far pretty much everyone of your comments to me has contained some fallacy or assumption. You really should learn how to debate correctly because so far you stink at it .... Hon

 

i never claimed you did hon. all im saying that it happens to males too so your one case of discrimination from 45 years ago doesnt prove a gender wage gap.

 

I never said it did.

What it does prove is that your assertion of NO cases is BS.

 

No cases that prove a wave gap.

 

the only way to truly know, is to force employers to disclose their employees wages to other employees

 

Moving the goalposts yet again I see .. do you have anything other than fallacies, and lies?

 

i didnt move the goalpost i just wasnt specific about where it actually was. there is a difference. you may have done what i asked but it doesnt prove anything to me or anyone else.

 

You moved the goalposts .. your initial assertion was proven wrong, you then spent a good number of posts trying to weasel out of that fact.

I proved that your assertion of there being NO cases was incorrect, unlike you I have not made any statements alluding to being facts about what the cause of the remaining 5% wage gap is, unlike you I have an open mind as to what it could be.

 

One case or a few cases of discrimination is not evidence of systematic discrimination against either gender.

 

Same reply goes to you as to the other poster .. I didn't say it did.

 

Let us, just for a second, accept that the inaccurate notion of women working for free after X'o clock is indeed true as this will facilitate the process of dissecting the notion and the deluded arguments it is built on.
There are two arguments the Feminist perspective on the labort market. No.1 being that women are paid less for the same work and no.2 being that women are systematically discriminated in favor men when it comes to choosing a employee. Already here we have a problem as the arguments contradicts one and other and anyone with a basic understanding of economics will be able to see why:

If it was indeed true that companies legislatively could hire women by paying them a salary that is “below average”, companies would do nothing but hiring women as this would save them (*)(*)(*)(*)loads of money and generate greater growth. So it is very stupid to build a worldview based on two arguments that so clearly contradict each other.
Let’s assume Mr.Orange owns a plantation where he has both male- and female employees and the company’s only expenses are the salaries it pais. Peter and Mary both work at this plantation, they are equally productive and their salaries are as follows below.
Finally Mr.Orange sells each orange for 1$.

Peter: 100$/100 apples and Mary: 87$/100 apples.

In this cases Mr.Orange’s company generates a win of 0 $/male employee whereas each female employee generates a win of 13$. Now let’s assume there is infact a “Patriarchal structure” within the orange business where employers systematically discriminate female employees in favor of male employees. The employer who employs a female employee can then easily beat and completely out-conquer his rivals as his company will account for the greater win.

The example above illustrates, in a very simple and good way, how you cannot assume that women are systematically discriminated on the labor market and are paid less for same work at the same time as the argument is illogical as hell, because a world like this would be economically unsustainable. If it was indeed true that women earned less for same work, men would be the ones who’d be systematically discriminated on the market as all rational employers would only be interested in hiring women.

The example is of course rather simplified and abstract, not to mention highly hypothetical. However, it is not like there is lack of empirical data when it comes to proving that a so called “gender pay gap” is just unfounded hogwash.
As been mentioned previously, most differences that do appear do not stand without a logical explanation. Mostly they are the result of comparing apples to pears and the result of an unhealthy collectivization. Something that is of course the epitome of idiocy as men and women are different and therefore pick different careers. Additionally the biological aspect of the female monopoly on pregnancy and motherhood plays a huge part in the game and the way couples chose to split their parental leave.

If one were to look into the alleged “pay gap” business by business (instead of lumping together all men and all women), one would notice that the gap is almost completely absent. And any differences that still might appear are due to the factors mentioned above.

Noticing differences by collectivizing is very easy. For example there are global trends that show fat men earn more than “non-fat” men and that “native” men and women earn more than foregin men and women. Homosexual women earn more than heterosexual women and heterosexual men more than homosexual men. The list goes on and on. We cannot expect the same level of competence, skill and work ethic from all individuals within all collectives. That is just stupid. Thus, the question is ought to be why these differences exist and not just not pointing out the fact that they do exist.

Pushed to its extreme one can state that(female) waitresses are paid less than female heart-transplant surgeons and from this build a vague argument about how waitresses are systematically discriminated on the labor market and how they are paid less despite working just as many hours as the "heart-transplant collective":

As I see it, it is nothing but anti-Feminist and misogyny to infantilize the woman by portraying her as an individual who needs “special help” and advantage in order to be able to compete with their male counterparts on the market. Yes?
The notion of a “gender pay gap” lacks not only logical validity, but also empirical- and theoretical raison d’être. Such and extraordinary notion needs extraordinary evidence, something the the group screaming about the “pay gap” constantly fail to present.

 

Not true in fact.

When all.personal choices are taken into account the pay gap vanishes .
This is why no one can show an occupation where men work side by side with women doing the same work with the same background and still get paid more.

 

yet, in fashion and porn, women do make more than men

 

True, and no one complains or cares.

 

Actually very true, look at the report provided by another wage-gap denier where it shows when all things have been taken into consideration including personal choices there is still a ~5% wage-gap.

http://commons.wikimannia.org/File:Gender_Wage_Gap_Final_Report_2009.pdf