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

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished 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.

Posted by jimmyfenix

lets get a doctors opinion on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKWpQDBvBbM

Posted by crcruz3

@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.

Posted by Aussiepowa

IDK.. i like boobs! so much so i got married so i could enjoy my very own big boobies. Unfortunatley this was some time ago and they have now gone a bit saggy

I still play with them from time to time and they still do bounce up and down which is good.

So be proud boobs you do a great job and keep up (as long as u can) the good work ( . ) ( . )

Posted by Judakel

@jimmyfenix said:

this is why dead island riptide will sell

Yes, we're all going to buy a sequel to a shitty game because someone wrote an article about it.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished 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.

That is simply not true. Men have an average of two years seniority on the equivalent job, which will produce raises that the woman will not have until two years later. Men also work more hours per week on the equivalent job and therefore have higher paychecks even when making the same amount per hour. It is a fact that when you compare women and men who are single and have not raised children their current and lifetime earnings are basically identical. Women are paid less because of the fields they choose to go into, they hold will work more jobs in their lifetime therefore losing seniority and associated pay raises, and they work less hours and less years overall due to valuing child-rearing over income.

This "pay gap" concept is a myth. At one time it was true but it isn't now.

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.

Posted by jimmyfenix

this is why dead island riptide will sell

Posted by Judakel

@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.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished 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.

That is simply not true. Men have an average of two years seniority on the equivalent job, which will produce raises that the woman will not have until two years later. Men also work more hours per week on the equivalent job and therefore have higher paychecks even when making the same amount per hour. It is a fact that when you compare women and men who are single and have not raised children their current and lifetime earnings are basically identical. Women are paid less because of the fields they choose to go into, they hold will work more jobs in their lifetime therefore losing seniority and associated pay raises, and they work less hours and less years overall due to valuing child-rearing over income.

This "pay gap" concept is a myth. At one time it was true but it isn't now.

Posted by Bismarck
Posted by Moblyn

@august: @august said:

@Dezztroy said:

From my experience, there are quite a few women with fake breasts wearing bikinis at tropical locations. I don't see what's sexist about it.

It's a fucking headless mutilated corpse for you to display in your home.

That it is. Still how is it sexist?

Posted by mrfluke

@Missacre said:

I'm just gonna leave this here.
Online
Posted by crcruz3

@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.

Posted by Milkman
@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?
Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Yes, it's basically the same explanation. Block's quote is more succinct because it belongs to an article about a broader subject.

They're both equally terrible explanations, that's for sure.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished 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.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Also from the article: "The Department of Labor’s Time Use Survey, for example, finds that the average full-time working man spends 8.14 hours a day on the job, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman. Employees who work more likely earn more." Men also work more days/months/years through their lifetime due to prioritizing child-rearing.

The "pay gap" has been thoroughly explained and debunked. At least in the U.S.

Posted by Missacre

@Coombs: You. I want to marry you.

Posted by Krullban

@Milkman said:

@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?

A ton of the shit on that list is just fucking stupid..

"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."

How the fuck is this a male privilege, that's a persons fashion decision.

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

I don't even know what the fuck this is?

The list is full of absolutely stupid shit that is either not true, or just fucking dumb.

Posted by crcruz3

@Archaen said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Yes, it's basically the same explanation. Block's quote is more succinct because it belongs to an article about a broader subject.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

Posted by EnduranceFun

@Milkman said:

@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?

It's irrelevant because the torso is not sexist. Even if I thought it was, latching onto the fact that I find the "privilege" ideology to be dumb is only dragging out this off-topic argument about feminism.

Posted by Coombs

I'm going to do my best to contribute as much to this conversation as everyone else,

So First here is an important public service message to help out the ladies argument.

And now here is a well thought out and very serious opinion on one possibility why women still make less $$$ than men.

I think I have provided at least as much well thought out commentary on this issue as anyone else in this thread,

Except maybe....

@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

Posted by Scotto

Sexism is certainly rampant in games (all media, really), but this Dead Island Riptide thing is just absurd at this point.

It was dumb, and ill advised. I also at no point was confused by what it was supposed to be - a zombie torso in sexy beach attire, because a) I assume "Riptide" is another tropical themed game, and because b) they assumed male gamers would like the boobs.

I AM confused as to why this particular instance of sexual immaturity marketed towards gamers is a national issue, but, say, all of the other games that feature females with ridiculous proportions are not. Why no articles about the latest Dead or Alive game?

The Riptide thing is an easy target, because not only did it play into the usual sexual immaturity tropes the "gamer" community is faced with, it was also just a dumb object to begin with. Nobody wants an obtuse bloody torso to proudly display on their bookcase.

Posted by Judakel

@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.

Posted by Milkman
@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?
Posted by Archaen

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Posted by crcruz3

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

Edited by EnduranceFun

@Milkman said:

Delusion now.

Oh look, a feminist wrote an essay about a feminist idea. That clearly makes me delusional.

Still irrelevant. Still desperate in trying to defend the article by linking it with sexism.

Posted by Pezen

@Judakel said:

Something is not objectifying in a vacuum. The social conditions surrounding it add to the level of objectification through context. It is an act and acts gain their power from social conditions, among other things. Some women, like your wife, are wrong.

Now YOU go in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.

Tell her that she is wrong regarding an opinion? Are you under the illusion that the social ethics we use to steer our society forward is somehow calculated in science? It's all opinion shaped by opinion shaped by opinion. They're all subjective steps on a mass scale. Besides, if a woman objectify a man she objectify him the same way a man objectify a woman because the act of objectifying is the same.

Sure, but I only really do one sandwich. Which is smoked turkey, crispy bacon, cheddar cheese, slices of tomato and mayo on white bread or in a pita.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Posted by JoshyLee

Anyone who argues that women have a fair shake and are treated equally to men are idiots. Sexism exists. This statue just isn't an example of it.

Posted by Missacre
I'm just gonna leave this here.
Posted by Milkman
Edited by muffinmcmuffin

There are many lols available in this comment section. It's always a party when people read a statement on the effects of white male privilege as constituting an argument that women are "weak" and need to be protected. Then the silly men's rights movement arguments start popping up. A+++, would read again.

Posted by crcruz3

@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."

Posted by apothaeos

I want to be part of this mega-thread. So here's a comment. Fukkin' internet. People are bad at arguing.

Posted by Pezen

@Judakel: Her point to me was not the historical systematic implications of gender inequality, but that a male torso and a female torso displayed in such a manner is equally bad because it would be equally tasteless and equally "objectifying" if that what people thought of it. The historical relevance of gender inequality has little bearing on that torso for anyone who doesn't overanalyze everything they see and make a big deal out of their overzealous ideas. For some women, like my wife, it's just "basement nerd swag" and not a beacon of sexism in society.

And don't tell my wife to go into the kitchen, I am a much better at those things. Unless we're talking baking, she beats me there.

Posted by graf1k

@Judakel: Is your point that if pay WAS the same for men and women that Zombie Titty Statue would have been okay? Or are you merely creating a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and drawing a correlation between two unrelated phenomena that is completely spurious?

Posted by Darji

@Judakel said:

@buft said:

@Judakel said:

Marginalized nerds feel their only sources of social power, namely their maleness and their whiteness, under attack and are lashing out the only way they know how: anonymously on the internet.

Being male and white isn't what makes me as a person, its what i was born with and I'm sorry if you have been victimized or made to feel bad by someone who shares some of my physical characteristics but pushing your agenda of boxing us together is part of the problem but if it makes you feel better I cant help that but for the life of me think of one moment that this benefited me one bit.

My name is Justin Johnston, I'm 29 and I'm from Ireland, i posted my picture on the thread here and I'm not afraid to say that Patricks article while I'm sure has its heart in the right place is no further to outing sexism in the industry, if he truly wanted to make a case for sexism he would out the companies that hold females back from positions of power, pay their female employees less or treat them unfairly.At the moment all we have is an article about women in the industries opinions on a fairly tacky and tasteless statue.

What are you going on about? No one is asking you apologize for being male and white. At best, you're being asked to not perpetuate the privilege these attributes give you. Given what follows your opening statement: Good job at failing to do that. Also, way to go in assuming someone had to victimize me in order for me to see male and white privilege as a problem.

Also, Patrick's article serves to keep the issue of sexism in this industry in the spotlight. I am not sure how you missed that, but given that you think someone is asking to apologize for "WHO I AM", I am not surprised.

I am sorry and I do not know how you were brought up. Maybe you were taught that women are weak and needs to be protected but I was not. I treat women the as I threat men. I am not more carefully with my words because she is a woman I am more carefully if I know that he or she feels offended or hurt by it.

And honesty. If a women is going to hit me especially without a reason I would probably hit back. And not because I am an asshole but because I do not treat them differently. Luckily I was never in any situation I had to hit someone or to get caught in a fight and hopefully I never will.

Posted by buft

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Male privilege is as much a fact as the 9/11 conspiracy theories or the NWO.

Though what really matters is why the fuck you think you need to bring this up right now. The audacity to attack other members of this forum purely based on their viewpoints. You'd get a lot further if you tried to explain your point-of-view calmly and in the proper forum, this is hardly the place for that. It makes the whole feminist movement look bad when commenters like you come and bitch at the 'patriarchy' like a dumbass.

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

So when i mentioned that in my response it was a non issue and i was wrong but suddenly that's the key to this whole thing? I believe you might be just what you are claiming to hate in your original statement and this is how you "lash out" under the guise of anonymity

@Judakel said:

@buft said:

@Judakel said:

Marginalized nerds feel their only sources of social power, namely their maleness and their whiteness, under attack and are lashing out the only way they know how: anonymously on the internet.

Being male and white isn't what makes me as a person, its what i was born with and I'm sorry if you have been victimized or made to feel bad by someone who shares some of my physical characteristics but pushing your agenda of boxing us together is part of the problem but if it makes you feel better I cant help that but for the life of me think of one moment that this benefited me one bit.

My name is Justin Johnston, I'm 29 and I'm from Ireland, i posted my picture on the thread here and I'm not afraid to say that Patricks article while I'm sure has its heart in the right place is no further to outing sexism in the industry, if he truly wanted to make a case for sexism he would out the companies that hold females back from positions of power, pay their female employees less or treat them unfairly.At the moment all we have is an article about women in the industries opinions on a fairly tacky and tasteless statue.

What are you going on about? No one is asking you apologize for being male and white. At best, you're being asked to not perpetuate the privilege these attributes give you. Given what follows your opening statement: Good job at failing to do that. Also, way to go in assuming someone had to victimize me in order for me to see male and white privilege as a problem.

Also, Patrick's article serves to keep the issue of sexism in this industry in the spotlight. I am not sure how you missed that, but given that you think someone is asking to apologize for "WHO I AM", I am not surprised.

Posted by jimmyfenix

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Male privilege is as much a fact as the 9/11 conspiracy theories or the NWO.

Though what really matters is why the fuck you think you need to bring this up right now. The audacity to attack other members of this forum purely based on their viewpoints. You'd get a lot further if you tried to explain your point-of-view calmly and in the proper forum, this is hardly the place for that. It makes the whole feminist movement look bad when commenters like you come and bitch at the 'patriarchy' like a dumbass.

amen

Posted by Oginam

Maybe its just me but I kind of want a more strict moderation policy for GB. And more mods to enforce it. Not that I'm against a person sharing his or her viewpoint but only so long as its done in a mature, reasoned manner. I probably just expect too much out of a video gaming community on the internet.

You can't fix a problem in a game by ignoring it or claiming it doesn't exist, and the problem won't fix itself. Same goes for real life.

Posted by buft

@Judakel said:

Marginalized nerds feel their only sources of social power, namely their maleness and their whiteness, under attack and are lashing out the only way they know how: anonymously on the internet.

Being male and white isn't what makes me as a person, its what i was born with and I'm sorry if you have been victimized or made to feel bad by someone who shares some of my physical characteristics but pushing your agenda of boxing us together is part of the problem but if it makes you feel better I cant help that but for the life of me think of one moment that this benefited me one bit.

My name is Justin Johnston, I'm 29 and I'm from Ireland, i posted my picture on the thread here and I'm not afraid to say that Patricks article while I'm sure has its heart in the right place is no further to outing sexism in the industry, if he truly wanted to make a case for sexism he would out the companies that hold females back from positions of power, pay their female employees less or treat them unfairly.At the moment all we have is an article about women in the industries opinions on a fairly tacky and tasteless statue.

Posted by graf1k

Can this be over yet? Deep Silver got what they wanted with a bunch of free press for their video game that has had little buzz, females who were offended by the stupid thing were successful in the stupid thing being taken down and had their opinions validated by the apology, and Patrick got to white knight the ever-loving shit out it. The only people who 'lost' anything is the majority of people (male AND female) who took one look at the thing, said "Boy that is stupid, and definitely not worth $150" or whatever they were going to charge and wanted to move the fuck on but can't because hey, somebody said the word "sexism" and now we need to have a congressional hearing on the Dead Island Riptide Zombie Titty Statue Debacle of 2013 before it can end. Bravo.

Just for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with the thought that this thing is sexist and stupid, just like I don't necessarily disagree with P.E.T.A. that animal cruelty is terrible. But just like P.E.T.A., if you are snide, borderline malicious in making your point, brow-beating those who aren't as evangelical as you about your issue, you aren't doing yourself or your cause any favors.

Posted by jimmyfenix

i wish techland release this bust and say FUCK Y`ALL on it

Posted by granderojo

@dreffen said:

@thabigred said:

If you don't like these features, don't read them.

But with my privilege I feel I must say that this is all okay, and that these women are just getting all feminazi on me for stating the truth.

This statue was a bad idea and that's all these women were saying here. I don't see how this is a controversial thing. Furthermore blowing up the comments section with hundreds of posts about it and continuing to be angry about something that shouldn't be a controversy is lame.

Posted by dreffen

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@dreffen said:

@InsidiousTuna said:

To summarize: a bunch of male Giant Bomb community members dictate to a bunch of women what they're allowed to find sexist.

Good work, internet. Knocked it out of the park.

This sums it up pretty nicely.

No one says anything remotely sexist, but you guys sure want to pigeon-hole them as such. They complain about the article, they criticise the frequency, the sound-noise ratio, but nope, they're all just entitled nerds.

How about they read the articles, but you stop reading their comments? No one is forcing you to.

I agree with this guy. Delusional attitudes like his are not the problem. It's the fact you read them. Little boys just want their corner to rage in.

PS. My denial of male privilege perpetuates sexism, but I've said nothing sexist so get off my back.

But no one said anything remotely sexist, people are just pigeon-holing it as such.

Posted by jimmyfenix

@Pezen said:

Interesting reading 8 women sharing their thoughts on this. It's a bit lazy journalism to pick 8 people who agree on a "controversial" subject though because it both makes the author (Patrick) of the two articles seem like he's patting himself on the back and it doesn't really give the discussion any fodder for discussion. But, I suspect Patrick isn't interesting in "discussing" the topic as much as pushing for a specific end goal. Which is fine, if intellectually dull. Problem I have is that women don't necessarily agree on this topic, considering how many comments have raised examples of women not at all thinking that torso is an offense to all women and disagree that the gender of the thing matters, saying it would be equally bad as a male torso (including my own wife). But, somewhere I am starting to agree that maybe GB could either split their texts into News/Editorials or completely rename the "news" section to something more general. Because as other's have said, when you apply opinion to a "news" story, it's not quite reporting unbiased news anymore.

word

Posted by jimmyfenix

@dreffen said:

@thabigred said:

If you don't like these features, don't read them.

But with my privilege I feel I must say that this is all okay, and that these women are just getting all feminazi on me for stating the truth.

im getting threats aswell