Log in or sign up to comment
2527 Comments
Posted by ffdthree

@Zornack said:

Huh, thought I clicked a giantbomb link. How'd I end up on Kotaku?

Not a single opinion that it's simply a stupid statue no one gives a fuck about, just eight paragraphs about how hateful, sexist and misogynistic the video game industry is.

Quality journalism.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

The example of the women in my highly technical field was to illustrate how women are actually voluntarily creating the wage gap themselves and there is no discriminatory practice at play. The data points to the same conclusion. When women actually do the same job and work as many hours as men they make as much money in a year. They simply don't do that because they choose to value other things than money more often than men do.

It doesn't illustrate that because it is anecdotal evidence. It is completely worthless in even supporting the already existence data. The data does not point to the same conclusion anyway. The data I linked to, which I suspect you still have not fucking copied on to your URL bar, shows a wage gap for women who work the same job for the same amount of time. This discussion has been settled, and unlike you I provided actual graphs with a methodology description. Not some editorial.

Posted by Krullban

@SupberUber said:

Wherever this discussion went, I think everyone can agree that this is a shitty item to include in a LE package. It baffles me that the publisher let this idea pass through the system, it really does. And I'm not talking about morals here, either. Where would you put a model of a torso? In your bedroom? Living room?

Horror fans would want it. They have all kinds of gory stuff.

Posted by Missacre

@SupberUber said:

Wherever this discussion went, I think everyone can agree that this is a shitty item to include in a LE package. It baffles me that the publisher let this idea pass through the system, it really does. And I'm not talking about morals here, either. Where would you put a model of a torso? In your bedroom? Living room?

I was actually planning on buying it. To me, it looks neat, and it'll go along with my other figures and busts.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

That money would only come out of those businesses if you taxed them extra for it. If you instead taxed workers then business expenses would not go up unless the employers decided to pay for it. Having children is not something that business owners consider an expense or even an investment. Our government also doesn't consider it an expense or an investment but have taken pains to make it illegal to discriminate against those that do decide to raise children. Your argument is that we, as a people, should value raising children more. That's fine. There's nothing discriminatory in play, though. The pay gap is entirely due to women making their own choices about what they value in life. Men choose money over raising children, more women choose the opposite, and that's the end of the story. Recent studies of urban non-married 18-30s has shown that women actually get paid more per year in total than men, possibly due to the current education gap (more women than men are graduating with advanced degrees these days).

Yeah, you're right. It is not as if taxing workers would negatively affect spending. Fuck me. This is economics 101. This is why you tax businesses and the rich first, in all matters. This is also why I said that the money will be coming out of businesses no matter what.

Look, I am not sure where the thought process breaks down for you, but let me walk you through the problem once again. The fact women are the only ones that can have children, and the fact having children is a necessary part of life in order for our civilization to survive, pretty much means at some point, it will be absolutely necessary for a woman to have a child. Necessary for everyone's benefit, not just their own. They fulfill a necessary role with their biology and they are being punished for it by receiving fewer opportunities for advancement due to fulfilling this role - in most instances. This is in large part responsible for the wage gap. You agree with me on this. The part you seem confused about is the part where we treat raising children as a necessity rather than a choice. I am done being patient with you, so just get your head out of your ass and think about the consequences were it truly a choice they could walk-away from in their lives. Some do, but most could not. It would be a terrible crisis, and the fact most of them are willing to do it in no way negates the fact it is not really a choice.

I am not really sure what you're not getting here. It doesn't get more "born into a role that will end up in discrimination 9-times-out-of-10 in our current climate" than that. Now, keep in mind that men can just as easily step into this role if they so wish (at least the rearing part), but understand that many times societal pressures will ensure it is women who perform this task. There is no "choice" about it. Stop using that language. It is intellectually dishonest and naive.

One last point concerning "choice": Even if it were a choice that no outside factors ensured women would make most of the time, there is still absolutely no logic behind the idea that they should be punished for it. None. Someone has to do this job and they should not give up the prospect of an equally bright future to men in order to perform this necessary task. You are punishing people for doing something you couldn't live without. It makes no fucking sense. Make no mistake about it, it is absolutely a punishment to have your financially independent future derailed because you are performing a necessary task.

THAT is the end of the story.

The fact more women than men are graduating from college is another issue altogether, but in no way does it negate concerns for the wage gap that still negatively affects an overwhelming number of women. Don't even try to go that route.

Posted by SupberUber

Wherever this discussion went, I think everyone can agree that this is a shitty item to include in a LE package. It baffles me that the publisher let this idea pass through the system, it really does. And I'm not talking about morals here, either. Where would you put a model of a torso? In your bedroom? Living room?

Posted by crcruz3

@Missacre said:

Man, how THE FUCK did we go from video games to economics? You guys arguing, take it somewhere else. You're still taking up all the space.

Would you say they are not related at all? Don't you think economics is fun?

Posted by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.

Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.

Posted by RoyCampbell
@Missacre said:

Man, how THE FUCK did we go from video games to economics? You guys arguing, take it somewhere else. You're still taking up all the space.

What they're arguing about is just as irrelevant as the subject matter of this article. Go figure!
Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less".

This absolutely does happen. At my office we have three women who do the same jobs as men in identical positions but they choose to work less than 40 hours so they can get home in time for their children to get out of school. They also take off more vacation and sick time than the men and negotiated those exceptions when they were hired. They are as productive as the men when they are working, but they specifically choose to work less than the men, who all put in over 40 hours a week and work nights and weekends if the task demands it. The women are, in fact, creating less business and doing less work per week. I personally think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and neither does my employer. They get the same raises as the men who have the same seniority and skill sets, but what do you know, they make less money per year than the men doing the same jobs. It's as simple as that. There is no sexism involved whatsoever in the phenomenon.

Work less as in "accomplish less in the same amount of hours". Those women were hired for part-time position and they get paid like part-time workers. This is not the problem. They weren't demoted to part-time workers after the fact and their salaries lowered because they chose to take a temporary leave of absence to raise their children. Nor were their prospects for advancement dimmed due to their absence.

What you are describing is patently illegal and a very easy case to win in court. Any HR person will advise against doing this.

My father was a CIO for a medical device company and his Controller was a woman. She decided to have kids and went on maternity leave. Unfortunately she had complications that extended her maternity leave to 6 months. She then came back to work in her original position at her original salary and hours. She eventually had 2 more children and received 6 months of maternity leave each time due to medical complications. My father had a lot of difficulty working with this woman, but there was nothing legally that he could do. He had to allow her leave and keep her position open despite having her missing for half of each of three years because that is U.S. law. During her absence he would have to hire a controller from a temp agency, train them to do the job over a few months, and a few months later end their employment so his original controller would be able to resume her position. He ended up having to work a lot of nights doing the work that the controller he chose to do the job wasn't there to do.

The point of the story is that what you are describing, women being descriminated against and forced to part-time employment because they took time off for children is a thing of the past in the U.S. There are very harsh laws against it.

You think I am making claims that I am not making. What I described past "Work less as in 'accomplish less in the same amount of hours'." is not the scenario on which my wage gap argument rests. It is simply the scenario that would have to develop from your inconsequential example of these part-time workers where you are employed in order for me to think it is unfair. In other words, I was dismissing your example and giving you an example of the only way in which it could change into a source of outrage given what I've previously stated. I was not claiming this is how some of the wage gap has come about. Your example was in no way relevant, and neither is this latest post.

Although that last sentence in the post you quoted is very much an issue and part of the wage gap problem.

The example of the women in my highly technical field was to illustrate how women are actually voluntarily creating the wage gap themselves and there is no discriminatory practice at play. The data points to the same conclusion. When women actually do the same job and work as many hours as men they make as much money in a year. They simply don't do that because they choose to value other things than money more often than men do.

Posted by Missacre

Man, how THE FUCK did we go from video games to economics? You guys arguing, take it somewhere else. You're still taking up all the space.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less".

This absolutely does happen. At my office we have three women who do the same jobs as men in identical positions but they choose to work less than 40 hours so they can get home in time for their children to get out of school. They also take off more vacation and sick time than the men and negotiated those exceptions when they were hired. They are as productive as the men when they are working, but they specifically choose to work less than the men, who all put in over 40 hours a week and work nights and weekends if the task demands it. The women are, in fact, creating less business and doing less work per week. I personally think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and neither does my employer. They get the same raises as the men who have the same seniority and skill sets, but what do you know, they make less money per year than the men doing the same jobs. It's as simple as that. There is no sexism involved whatsoever in the phenomenon.

Work less as in "accomplish less in the same amount of hours". Those women were hired for part-time position and they get paid like part-time workers. This is not the problem. They weren't demoted to part-time workers after the fact and their salaries lowered because they chose to take a temporary leave of absence to raise their children. Nor were their prospects for advancement dimmed due to their absence.

What you are describing is patently illegal and a very easy case to win in court. Any HR person will advise against doing this.

My father was a CIO for a medical device company and his Controller was a woman. She decided to have kids and went on maternity leave. Unfortunately she had complications that extended her maternity leave to 6 months. She then came back to work in her original position at her original salary and hours. She eventually had 2 more children and received 6 months of maternity leave each time due to medical complications. My father had a lot of difficulty working with this woman, but there was nothing legally that he could do. He had to allow her leave and keep her position open despite having her missing for half of each of three years because that is U.S. law. During her absence he would have to hire a controller from a temp agency, train them to do the job over a few months, and a few months later end their employment so his original controller would be able to resume her position. He ended up having to work a lot of nights doing the work that the controller he chose to do the job wasn't there to do.

The point of the story is that what you are describing, women being descriminated against and forced to part-time employment because they took time off for children is a thing of the past in the U.S. There are very harsh laws against it.

You think I am making claims that I am not making. What I described past "Work less as in 'accomplish less in the same amount of hours'." is not the scenario on which my wage gap argument rests. It is simply the scenario that would have to develop from your inconsequential example of these part-time workers where you are employed in order for me to think it is unfair. In other words, I was dismissing your example and giving you an example of the only way in which it could change into a source of outrage given what I've previously stated. I was not claiming this is how some of the wage gap has come about. Your example was in no way relevant, and neither is this latest post.

Although that last sentence in the post you quoted is very much an issue and part of the wage gap problem.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

I am not really sure why you think the fact we don't "give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing" is anything but sexism. Don't you understand that sexism is discrimination based on biological sex or gender?

It would be exactly that, discrimination based on gender, to do a job and have to stay overtime and get paid the same amount as a woman who went home after 7.5 hours of work just because she was born with ovaries.

The assumption here, once again, is that this woman is being unfairly "rewarded". This is wrong and the exact reason I assume you don't view raising a child as work on par or more difficult than working at an office.

The business owner is not profiting from a woman doing less work for him and instead going home and working for society, if that's how you prefer to think about it. You cannot expect the business owner to hire a woman and a man but pay them both the same amount of money each year when she is only doing 85% of the work as the man for his business. If you think we as a society should subsidize women not working through taxes and checks from the government, fine, but expecting private businesses to cover that expense is crazy.

No, there is no "how you prefer to think about it". You claimed it was sexist. I pointed out it wasn't. We weren't talking about economics in that exchange. Don't say it is fine if I expect that we as society cover such expenses, but then claim it is crazy to suggest businesses should cover it themselves. Either way, that money would be coming out of these businesses. That's the way the economy works.

That money would only come out of those businesses if you taxed them extra for it. If you instead taxed workers then business expenses would not go up unless the employers decided to pay for it. Having children is not something that business owners consider an expense or even an investment. Our government also doesn't consider it an expense or an investment but have taken pains to make it illegal to discriminate against those that do decide to raise children. Your argument is that we, as a people, should value raising children more. That's fine. There's nothing discriminatory in play, though. The pay gap is entirely due to women making their own choices about what they value in life. Men choose money over raising children, more women choose the opposite, and that's the end of the story. Recent studies of urban non-married 18-30s has shown that women actually get paid more per year in total than men, possibly due to the current education gap (more women than men are graduating with advanced degrees these days).

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

I am not really sure why you think the fact we don't "give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing" is anything but sexism. Don't you understand that sexism is discrimination based on biological sex or gender?

It would be exactly that, discrimination based on gender, to do a job and have to stay overtime and get paid the same amount as a woman who went home after 7.5 hours of work just because she was born with ovaries.

The assumption here, once again, is that this woman is being unfairly "rewarded". This is wrong and the exact reason I assume you don't view raising a child as work on par or more difficult than working at an office.

The business owner is not profiting from a woman doing less work for him and instead going home and working for society, if that's how you prefer to think about it. You cannot expect the business owner to hire a woman and a man but pay them both the same amount of money each year when she is only doing 85% of the work as the man for his business. If you think we as a society should subsidize women not working through taxes and checks from the government, fine, but expecting private businesses to cover that expense is crazy.

No, there is no "how you prefer to think about it". You claimed it was sexist. I pointed out it wasn't. We weren't talking about economics in that exchange. Don't say it is fine if I expect that we as society cover such expenses, but then claim it is crazy to suggest businesses should cover it themselves. Either way, that money would be coming out of these businesses. That's the way the economy works.

Posted by jimmyfenix

Arghhhhhh

Online
Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less".

This absolutely does happen. At my office we have three women who do the same jobs as men in identical positions but they choose to work less than 40 hours so they can get home in time for their children to get out of school. They also take off more vacation and sick time than the men and negotiated those exceptions when they were hired. They are as productive as the men when they are working, but they specifically choose to work less than the men, who all put in over 40 hours a week and work nights and weekends if the task demands it. The women are, in fact, creating less business and doing less work per week. I personally think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and neither does my employer. They get the same raises as the men who have the same seniority and skill sets, but what do you know, they make less money per year than the men doing the same jobs. It's as simple as that. There is no sexism involved whatsoever in the phenomenon.

Work less as in "accomplish less in the same amount of hours". Those women were hired for part-time position and they get paid like part-time workers. This is not the problem. They weren't demoted to part-time workers after the fact and their salaries lowered because they chose to take a temporary leave of absence to raise their children. Nor were their prospects for advancement dimmed due to their absence.

What you are describing is patently illegal and a very easy case to win in court. Any HR person will advise against doing this.

My father was a CIO for a medical device company and his Controller was a woman. She decided to have kids and went on maternity leave. Unfortunately she had complications that extended her maternity leave to 6 months. She then came back to work in her original position at her original salary and hours. She eventually had 2 more children and received 6 months of maternity leave each time due to medical complications. My father had a lot of difficulty working with this woman, but there was nothing legally that he could do. He had to allow her leave and keep her position open despite having her missing for half of each of three years because that is U.S. law. During her absence he would have to hire a controller from a temp agency, train them to do the job over a few months, and a few months later end their employment so his original controller would be able to resume her position. He ended up having to work a lot of nights doing the work that the controller he chose to do the job wasn't there to do.

The point of the story is that what you are describing, women being descriminated against and forced to part-time employment because they took time off for children is a thing of the past in the U.S. There are very harsh laws against it.

Edited by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less".

This absolutely does happen. At my office we have three women who do the same jobs as men in identical positions but they choose to work less than 40 hours so they can get home in time for their children to get out of school. They also take off more vacation and sick time than the men and negotiated those exceptions when they were hired. They are as productive as the men when they are working, but they specifically choose to work less than the men, who all put in over 40 hours a week and work nights and weekends if the task demands it. The women are, in fact, creating less business and doing less work per week. I personally think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and neither does my employer. They get the same raises as the men who have the same seniority and skill sets, but what do you know, they make less money per year than the men doing the same jobs. It's as simple as that. There is no sexism involved whatsoever in the phenomenon.

Work less as in "accomplish less in the same amount of hours". Those women were hired for part-time position and they get paid like part-time workers. This is not the problem. They weren't demoted to part-time workers after the fact and their salaries lowered because they chose to take a temporary leave of absence to raise their children. Nor were their prospects for advancement dimmed due to their absence.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

I am not really sure why you think the fact we don't "give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing" is anything but sexism. Don't you understand that sexism is discrimination based on biological sex or gender?

It would be exactly that, discrimination based on gender, to do a job and have to stay overtime and get paid the same amount as a woman who went home after 7.5 hours of work just because she was born with ovaries.

The assumption here, once again, is that this woman is being unfairly "rewarded". This is wrong and the exact reason I assume you don't view raising a child as work on par or more difficult than working at an office.

The business owner is not profiting from a woman doing less work for him and instead going home and working for society, if that's how you prefer to think about it. You cannot expect the business owner to hire a woman and a man but pay them both the same amount of money each year when she is only doing 85% of the work as the man for his business. If you think we as a society should subsidize women not working through taxes and checks from the government, fine, but expecting private businesses to cover that expense is crazy.

Posted by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

I am not really sure why you think the fact we don't "give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing" is anything but sexism. Don't you understand that sexism is discrimination based on biological sex or gender?

It would be exactly that, discrimination based on gender, to do a job and have to stay overtime and get paid the same amount as a woman who went home after 7.5 hours of work just because she was born with ovaries.

The assumption here, once again, is that this woman is being unfairly "rewarded". This is wrong and the exact reason I assume you don't view raising a child as work on par or more difficult than working at an office.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

I am not really sure why you think the fact we don't "give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing" is anything but sexism. Don't you understand that sexism is discrimination based on biological sex or gender?

It would be exactly that, discrimination based on gender, to do a job and have to stay overtime and get paid the same amount as a woman who went home after 7.5 hours of work just because she was born with ovaries.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less".

This absolutely does happen. At my office we have three women who do the same jobs as men in identical positions but they choose to work less than 40 hours so they can get home in time for their children to get out of school. They also take off more vacation and sick time than the men and negotiated those exceptions when they were hired. They are as productive as the men when they are working, but they specifically choose to work less than the men, who all put in over 40 hours a week and work nights and weekends if the task demands it. The women are, in fact, creating less business and doing less work per week. I personally think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and neither does my employer. They get the same raises as the men who have the same seniority and skill sets, but what do you know, they make less money per year than the men doing the same jobs. It's as simple as that. There is no sexism involved whatsoever in the phenomenon.

Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

Check last page.

That was posted before your reply popped up. I've already addressed it, by the way.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

I am not really sure why you think the fact we don't "give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing" is anything but sexism. Don't you understand that sexism is discrimination based on biological sex or gender?

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Krullban said:

@Judakel said:

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Literally nobody even said that.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

That's really not a fair use of what I said. I was clearly stating that women at home raising their children are not generating work for a business that would generate income. I was in no way stating that child-rearing or even homemaking are not difficult or valuable things to do.

Edited by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

Posted by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

Check last page.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

Edited by Judakel

@Krullban said:

@Judakel said:

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Literally nobody even said that.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

Posted by Enigma_2099

My stance is still, "what was the point? Why would you want this?"

Edited by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

Wow, my response was not an ad hominem attack in its entirety and I did not misread your quote. Kindly point out what I misread and realize that only the footnote was an ad hominem attack. I am allowed one. He is an Austrian school economist.

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

Edited by Krullban

@Judakel said:

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Literally nobody even said that.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Posted by Missacre

@Coombs: Numbers 4 and 6 are my favorite.

Posted by moondogger

I see we have entered the 'dueling sources' phase of the thread. There are many many opinion pieces out there on either side, but a good place to start is Wikipedia. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

There's been a lot of research done on this. It's worth looking up - there are many research links in this article.

My two cents: the gender gap is real. It hasn't been debunked, any more than 'global warming' has been debunked.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

First, let's watch our language, because we're getting into an area of discussion where the language will actually matter. Not for politically correct reasons, but because the rhetoric will actually shape the discourse. What I am implying is that women should not be punished for performing a necessary task to continuation of our species. Private entrepreneurs should value skilled labor enough to recognize that raising children is a necessary aspect of a functioning society and should not punish their workers for doing so. THIS GOES BOTH WAYS. If the man is raising the child, he should be paid as much as the woman. Although quite clearly a woman would have to take some time off in order to birth the child.

These women are not "choosing" not to work. If it is a choice, then I pray to God they do because it is about as necessary a task as one can imagine. You speak of this necessary task as if it were truly an option for the survival of our species. Ridiculous.

While the very notion that parts of the workforce should be paid even as they are not working for 2 years at a time may seem abhorrent to your capitalist sensibilities, understand that it is the ONLY ethical and logically sound option. To suggest women should take a hit in their wallets because they "choose" to raise a child, a task that is arguably more difficult than just about any modern job, is unethical. To suggest that they forego child-bearing and that no one (man or woman) take time off to raise a child is illogical. You really have no choice here.

If a business cannot afford to pay someone as they raise their child, then equal government support through higher taxation of said business-owners is always an option. Oh, and before you say anything, yes, it is viable.

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

Posted by Krullban

@Milkman said:

@Krullban: Even if a couple are a stretch, how can you sit there and tell me that the vast majority of that list isn't true?

"My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed."

Depends on the job, it goes the other way too, there are jobs where men are looked over in favour of women. But sure, I'm sure it exists with some companies.

"If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities."

Never heard a woman failing in her job and in-turn had that turned into. WOMEN CANNOT DO THIS EVER! (Not saying it has NEVER happened, but if it has. It's so incredibly rare it's not even worth noting, and could definitely go the other way too depending on the job.)

"I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female coworkers are."

Yes, definitely.

"If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job."

Nope.

"If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question."

What? Women who don't want children frequently have their femininity questioned? Since when?

"If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home."

Yes people will.

"My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true."

Has literally nothing to do with male privilege.

"When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be."

This is just stupid.. I've had plenty of female bosses, and I've seen plenty of females that are "the person in charge." Speculating that at your job the person in charge will always be male is stupid and not a "male privilege".

"As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters."

Then that's a parenting issue, not a male privilege issue. But in any case, I don't see that to be true in the slightest.

"As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often."

Again, I have literally no idea what the fuck this is even trying to say, and it's not true whatsoever.

"If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex."

Just as much as women, yes it will be.

"If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex."

Sure, the whole "women can't drive" thing is common.

"Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”"

Sure, but I think that's potentially due to the fact that men are more prone to just have sex with anything that moves, while women are not, so when women do, do it, it's a bit more shocking to the average person. But sure, yeah. Men wont really be called anything for being a slut.

"I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity."

Seems more like a self-esteem issue, not a male privilege issue.

"My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring."

Again, this one is just dumb.

"The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time."

Completely wrong. Men are expected by society to be well groomed too, and it's not a male privilege that we don't do as much to look good. That's a choice.

"If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore."

It's the exact same for both men and women. Ugly guys and ugly women both have large disadvantages.

"I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch."

Not true at all. A loud guy will just be called something different, and an aggressive guy will just be called a dick.

"I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, etc."

This is one of those things that have always never should have mattered. The "man" part in those jobs is completely irrelevant. Especially since man can just mean "an individual human". But sure, I'll just give you this one, because I can see where people could possibly be coming from.

"My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is."

Sure, sometimes this happens

"I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name."

I've never heard anybody get bashed or anything for choosing not to change their name after getting married.

I've become bored and don't want to go anymore. But yes, the majority of things on the list are stupid.

Posted by Coombs

Sex sells simple as that, The fact that this is for a game about zombies means the bloodied and mutilated part fits

And if you don't believe that you yourself are a pervert please take this quick test.....

Edited by Judakel

@JoshyLee said:

What is really sad is that none of what we say in this thread matters. When Jeff and the rest of the crew see it, they will dismiss it as internet scumbags. Because we disagree with this sensationalist bullshit being passed off as news.

The apathetic man's reward.

Posted by saroorhai

I guess it's sort of pointless to argue about it anymore, but I think the thing to do is for those who disagree with Patrick to ignore everything he puts up from now on. If there are enough people who feel the same someone is bound to notice the drop in traffic. To me, he has absolutely no credibility and I have no interest in anything else he has to say.

Posted by JoshyLee

What is really sad is that none of what we say in this thread matters. When Jeff and the rest of the crew see it, they will dismiss it as internet scumbags. Because we disagree with this sensationalist bullshit being passed off as news.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:shed for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

First, let's watch our language, because we're getting into an area of discussion where the language will actually matter. Not for politically correct reasons, but because the rhetoric will actually shape the discourse. What I am implying is that women should not be punished for performing a task necessary to the continuation of our species. Private entrepreneurs should value skilled labor enough to recognize that raising children is a necessary aspect of a functioning society and should not punish their workers for doing so. THIS GOES BOTH WAYS. If the man is raising the child, he should be accounted for just like the woman. Although quite clearly a woman would have to take some time off in order to birth the child.

These women are not "choosing" not to work. If it is a choice, then I pray to God they do because it is about as necessary a task as one can imagine. You speak of this necessary task as if it were truly an option for the survival of our species. Ridiculous.

While the very notion that parts of the workforce should be paid even as they are not working for 2 years at a time may seem abhorrent to your capitalist sensibilities, understand that it is the ONLY ethical and logically sound option. To suggest women should take a hit in their wallets because they "choose" to raise a child, a task that is arguably more difficult than just about any modern job, is unethical. Let's also remember that it is not just a hit to their wallet, but their financial independence and status in a society that judges you according to such parameters. To suggest that they forego child-bearing and that no one (man or woman) take time off to raise a child is illogical. You really have no choice here.

If a business cannot afford to pay someone as they raise their child, then equal government support through higher taxation of said business-owners is always an option. Oh, and before you say anything, yes, it is viable.

Posted by Barbed_Haywire

@Nettacki: Maybe I'm as pissed off as I am about it because I live in Melbourne (same city Jill was murdered in) but I was completely on board with these women until I read that. I think sexism in games is pervasive and disgusting but using someone's horrible death to score points is abhorrent. All she's succeeded in doing is pissing a bunch of people off and obfuscating the real issues here.

Posted by LiquidS

@PillClinton said:

So this must be the most commented thing on GB now, right? Patty just keeps on breakin' records!

@CarlosTheDwarf said:

@ReaganStein said:

"Please don't use my sexy cleavage shot that I myself use on my public Twitter profile to illustrate my complaints about sexy cleavage statues. Because that might make me look like a hypocrite."

LOL

Wow, that's fuckin' ridiculous. Just... the whole thing, wow.

Patrick the White Knight strikes again.

That is a perfect example why this opinion piece is a waste of time.

Posted by Coombs

@Sil3n7 said:

You know Patrick, if you don't like a particular games stance on women, don't buy that game. Let the market decide if they agree with your values.

When it comes down to it though I'm going to guess you will play "Sexist murder simulator 2013" like all of us. In fact, why don't you asks these women if they change their game buying habits based on this? If not, their criticism rings hollow.

You want to talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

This.

Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

The fact the man won a Nobel Prize does not invalidate another fact: Austrian economics is bunk and anything that comes out of a Austrian-school-of-thought economist's mouth is seriously suspect. Anyway, thanks for addressing my actual criticisms alongside addressing my footnote. I will take it as granted that you concede your point. Or don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than parrot a libertarian.

You are angry and misreading two simple paragraphs. Why bother? Most of your arguments are ad hominem attacks anyway.

Wow, my response was not an ad hominem attack in its entirety and I did not misread your quote. Kindly point out what I misread and realize that only the footnote was an ad hominem attack. I am allowed one. He is an Austrian school economist.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

Did you even check the URL I posted? Women who work the same jobs as men, for the same hours, still lag behind in pay.

Yes I did and no they do not. You are misreading the statistics. The statistics in your article use "median income" which if you had read the Forbes article you would know is misleading because it does not take into account several factors, including that women work less per hour than men.

Here is another article for you to read about that explains why the statistics you linked to are incorrect: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/