Multi-variate too. As stated by Jordan Peterson. He also uses interesting terms : - equality of OPPORTUNITY - equality of OUTCOME So you should be 100% behind the first for women, but 0% behind the latter (unless specific female aspects - such as motherhood - are causing the inequality) . His interview by Cathy Newman gives more detail on the above.
I work in data analysis among other areas in IT. To simply compare to sets of data at a high level, and not identify the varied causal factors for why the data results are as they are, you would not be using the internet now as a result, as it would not work and you could never ever troubleshoot problems with systems the data came from. The exact same applies to the pay gap data. Equality of opportunity is equal chance to try, and it depends on the merit of your personal efforts Equality of outcome means all your efforts and personal choices are for naught, someone who does less, is less committed and less conscientious, will get the same reward. A race is a good example Imagine the 100 meters You and I race against Usain Bolt. He trashes us, but the we have the difference deducted from our times to make us have the same race time as Bolt. That is equality of outcome The fact he has natural ability and has worked hard for years as an athlete, and that we sat on couches eating pies, counts for nought. as Peterson says, you need tyranny to apply equality of outcome to society, and he is 100% correct To even try is to create inequality, because you are making an effort to get better at something.
equality of outcome would make for some boring football too, but at least England would win the world cup every 4 years
The fact remains, that the statistical study of the gender pay gap could not show that gender alone is the dominant/significant variable in the disparity.
There is no statistical study if you are just grouping people by gender per field It's not a study imo
Surely we would win it every 128years as there are 32 teams competing (at present). As we won it in 1966 we are not due to win it again until at least 2058 (which sounds about right based on our current standard).
equality of outcome is a dystopian world where everyone that enters a completion wins, in that world, being better than someone else and having more success makes you an oppressor #participationmedalsonly
and draw in the same crowds and sponsorship and TV money Ronda Rousey was UFC's highest draw at her height and highest paid athlete in UFC of men and women. Feminists not being happy with that, started comparing her money to Floyd Mayweather's and making out it's unfair. and to be fair to Rousey, she told the femtards it was horseshit, and listed why Mayweather gets the money he does, namely, floyd has boxed for decades and had 40 pro fights and drew in billions to the sport, where as Rousey had less 10 pro fights as a champ and and drew in a few million, and it's a different sport with vastly different revenues feminists hate facts
Yes cos witch is a gender specific term in general, were men drowned during the witch moral panic? I dont think so. Today men are the witches that need drowning in this contemporary moral panic..
If you go down that path then games over in straight sets should be paid less than 5 setters. Truth is pay for tennis players is based on number of people watching them and they should be paid the same if demand for their product is equal. And more than men if the demand is more.
I don't agree with the "duration" argument either. Should be based on what you draw in terms of money into the competition or sport. If the women's game brings in say 5 billion and the men's game brings in 5 billion, then the prize money should be the same basing it on gender is ******ed imo (womens sport should pay same as mens cos muh gender equality) regardless of what the respective sports generate in terms of revenue.
I noticed something interesting today walking the dog. When she finds a dead bird, she rolls in its carcass, to hide the scent of a predator. Is that why manipulative predatory males identify as feminist (to hide the scent) ?
Yup, the pay gap is total bullshit. We need to get out of this mindset that a statistical disparity automatically means there is some kind of discrimination going on. Look at school grades for instance...for the last 20 years, girls have been slaying the lads when it comes to GCSE , A Levels and degrees. They score higher on written tests, and especially at GCSE level, they ****ing wreck boys. So why has no one jumped on this, obviously there is some discrimination against adolescent males in our state schools right? They are not achieving at the same level as the girls and as these Feminists will tell you, girls and boys are exactly the same, so it must be the fault of the schools right? The real reason boys score lower......because 15 year old boys are utter twats, they are far more easily distracted, have shorter attention spans and challenge authority far more than females, meaning their disciplinary record is far worse. Most 15 year olds boys think about nothing but sex, fighting and the latest FIFA/Call of Duty. Same with the wage gap, I know a lot of feminists dont want to hear it, but its true. Women simply make different choices when working. There is only a wage gap when you just take everything men earn and compare it with everything women earn. But people forget that women: a) Have more time off work with women issues. Not that these issues are not serious, but women have more time off with this sort of thing. b) They have more time off to care for relatives c) They have time off to have children, sometimes up to a year or more (a lot of which is unpaid). d) They work less hours in general (they work more part time jobs etc Cleaner, bar work, retail) This is a generalisation of course, of course there are career driven women, who, if anything, studies have found have advantages over men in terms of employment opportunities, especially in the 20-30 age range, and especially if they have degrees. But for the most part, men work more hours and take less time off, and that is the simple reason why (if you look at it in broad strokes) accumulatively across the gender, they earn more than women.
Don't really want to out myself on a male dominated testosterone driven site like this one as a feminist, but Jesus that is so far below your normal standard of argument. Essentially you are saying that biology is a good enough reason to pay women less than men. Remember that women have to overcome everything you have listed above and then when they manage to achieve the equal status they should still accept less pay? Utter nonsense. And you talk about childbirth as if it was some sort of hobby, that these feckless women waste their best years with self indulgence. This is the next generation they are giving birth to, without which we die out. But due to misogyny we should penalise them pay them "pin money". You're better than that.
"Essentially you are saying that biology is a good enough reason to pay women less than men" no he isn't saying biology is a reason to pay women less. "So what you're saying is" is not an argument, quote the part, where you claim he is saying that. You sound exactly like Cathy Newman, making false paraphrases and you've already decided on a bogey man and now are trying to make Bo that bogeyman
