77c to the $: Is the Gender Pay Gap a Myth?

[Deleted]

That's not even a little reasonable.

It is when you're talking about something like this. If you're on TV, the radio, or any position of influence, and you throw out the "77c to the dollar" line to state "women are paid less" with no context, you are spreading a half-truth because the reality is not even close to that figure when you're talking same job, same experience, and same hours.

[Deleted]

I think you're confusing feminists with the FBI, CIA and NSA.

You're not even trying to make sense in any kind of way, really.

[Endus]

It is when you're talking about something like this. If you're on TV, the radio, or any position of influence, and you throw out the "77c to the dollar" line to state "women are paid less" with no context, you are spreading a half-truth because the reality is not even close to that figure when you're talking same job, same experience, and same hours.

Like Wells said, this isn't remotely true. You're using a ridiculous and unfeasible standard. Particularly since what's happening here is that you are adding unsaid hypotheticals to what was actually said, and then attacking the speaker as if they had said them.

Obama's comments, which sparked this thread, did not state that the $0.77 figure was entirely due to discrimination. You can't just presume that's what he meant and lambast him for that. You're inventing fantastical untruths and attacking someone for what you're pretending they meant. It's ridiculous.

If, instead, you go by what was actually stated, the statement is perfectly correct. Just take it for what it actually said, rather than what you're pretending they must have meant, in your own head.

[Canpinter]

Like Wells said, this isn't remotely true. You're using a ridiculous and unfeasible standard. Particularly since what's happening here is that you are adding unsaid hypotheticals to what was actually said, and then attacking the speaker as if they had said them.

Obama's comments, which sparked this thread, did not state that the $0.77 figure was entirely due to discrimination. You can't just presume that's what he meant and lambast him for that. You're inventing fantastical untruths and attacking someone for what you're pretending they meant. It's ridiculous.

If, instead, you go by what was actually stated, the statement is perfectly correct. Just take it for what it actually said, rather than what you're pretending they must have meant, in your own head.

oh come on your really gonna try the "they never actuality lied" argument, when people just throw out the women make 77 cents to the dollar a man makes statistic and don't provide the context its a lie of omission because the statistic is useless without context

[s_bushido]

I've never used the 77% figure. I've always maintained that the discrepancy due to discrimination is somewhere around 5%, on average, and that the rest has justifiable explanations.

Even the people whose job it is to study these statistics can't say that discrimination is the cause... So saying that the 5% is a "discrepancy due to discrimination" is itself deceptive.

[Deleted]

Like Wells said, this isn't remotely true. You're using a ridiculous and unfeasible standard.

Of course feminists would think providing context and facts is ridiculous. It doesn't sound anything like as dramatic or urgent if you say "Women earn 95-98c, sometimes more, to every dollar a man earns".

Obama's comments, which sparked this thread, did not state that the $0.77 figure was entirely due to discrimination. You can't just presume that's what he meant and lambast him for that.

Oh please. Are you even trying? If that isn't what he wanted people to think, he should have separated the two statements.

"You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns," Obama said. "That is wrong, and in 2014, it's an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work."

He conflates that 77c figure with women not getting equal pay for equal work by pointing out that they deserve equal pay for equal work (when the figure only exists by comparing unequal work) right after saying that it's "wrong" this figure exists. No context on the figure is provided, no actual statistic on the actual state of inequality for equal work and equal circumstances is provided. He implied it was discrimination by implying that statistic has anything to do with equal work and circumstances.

Sorry, but being the president and perpetuating misleading shite is irresponsible.

[Shahad]

Like Wells said, this isn't remotely true. You're using a ridiculous and unfeasible standard. Particularly since what's happening here is that you are adding unsaid hypotheticals to what was actually said, and then attacking the speaker as if they had said them.

Obama's comments, which sparked this thread, did not state that the $0.77 figure was entirely due to discrimination. You can't just presume that's what he meant and lambast him for that. You're inventing fantastical untruths and attacking someone for what you're pretending they meant. It's ridiculous.

If, instead, you go by what was actually stated, the statement is perfectly correct. Just take it for what it actually said, rather than what you're pretending they must have meant, in your own head.

I don't think it's wise to divorce what was said from what the majority of people will understand. Or from what is implied by the statement.

[LilSaihah]

Obama's comments, which sparked this thread, did not state that the $0.77 figure was entirely due to discrimination. You can't just presume that's what he meant and lambast him for that.

I'm going to go ahead and put in an application at the white house proofreading their speeches. If they can't see this very basic implicit link between the number he presented and the topic, then I'm pretty sure a six year old could do a better job.

Come on. He's the fucking president. It's not unreasonable to assume he has competent speechwriters and/or statisticians.

[Rhine101]

I'm going to go ahead and put in an application at the white house proofreading their speeches. If they can't see this very basic implicit link between the number he presented and the topic, then I'm pretty sure a six year old could do a better job.

Come on. He's the fucking president. It's not unreasonable to assume he has competent speechwriters and/or statisticians.

Stephen Hawking called Pluto a Planet.

https://www.facebook.com/stephenhawk...type=1&theater

The New Horizons pioneering, decade-long mission is to travel to the outer reaches of our solar system, in order that we can discover more about our most distant planet, Pluto, and the Kuiper belt in which it is located. This July, NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration's New Horizons probe will fly by Pluto at 14km/s, using instruments to examine its atmosphere and surface and then ...

[belfpala]

Stephen Hawking called Pluto a Planet.

It's still a planet to me.

[Dolus]

I, agree, there is not a wage gap. Men and women make different life choices.