Lawtonfogle

>under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

I like the way that financial needs is considered coercion, but is just exempted. I wonder what the basis for the exemption is. How can it be justified compared to other forms of coercion (or the use of financial coercion in other areas) without resorting to special pleading?

Yeah, people always question why I'm not living bigger than I am. They don't understand putting half their income into savings instead of spending it on the now. The part that gets me is that when bad times come, people will look at my like I'm privileged and should share, forgetting that they already benefited from their extra earnings that they choose to spend instead of save. (To be clear, I'm talking about people who could've saved but didn't. I am not talking about the people who, through no fault of their own, never had a chance to save.)

>It's like that pithy line I heard once- "If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't be controversial".

An interesting line which seems to ignore evidence as to which gender is more expected to care for their child and treated harsher when they don't.

The underlying ideal is that men would favor men and they would all vote to legalize abortion, but this ignores both how there are many women who are against abortion (while few are against all forms, most are against some forms). It also ignores how men often hold other men accountable for caring for their children, including supporting laws that put dead beat fathers into prison.

I prefer the line "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be illegal."

Single past data point does not make a modern day trend.

>The problem is that logic you gave is suspect to a survivorship bias.

There is no such problem. What you are bringing up is a related, but different issue. The underlying question is still valid for the problem being discussed. If we want to bring in related but different problems... we could start by bringing in the issue of the gender difference in prisons which has really nasty effect on ability get a good wage... or a job at all.

>you've not somehow proved that the women being encouraged to prioritize family isn't a problem.

I never said it wasn't a problem. I said in a different comment:

>But gender roles are still a problem, especially for the people who are forced into the roles they do not like.

Now, as someone who does value work life balance more than making a lot of money working long hours, I do personally judge one social pressure as not as bad as the other. But I also understand that there are man who have different priorities who see other social pressures as worse, and I understand that there is a 'grass is always greener' effect.

I remember reading that gay men suffer a penalty to straight men while gay women have a boost compared to straight women. I wonder if that is related child care expectations when they do adopt children.

The best way to fix this is to create a social pressure to be open about salaries. Some want to fix this by teaching better negotiation skills to those who are poor at it, but as long as the social pressure is to hide this data, it is going to keep being a problem regardless if the cause is racism, sexism, classism, or just difference in negotiation skills.

That would go a long way to correct for differences resulting from maternal leave, but there would still be issues such as single people, and especially single men, being favored (since it is rare for them to have a child who they must then take mandatory leave to care for).

I explain my issue with this question.

>How it is more often foisted upon women?

I show that there is an equal pressure put on men to do different things. My issue is with the "more often".

Now, maybe you were only talking about the pressure on women and not the pressure on men... you should be able to see the issue with this as well.

The very last line of the post you just responded to.

>I think the deeper problem is why are women forced in the child care role and men into the bread winning roles and how to fix that (which you do mention).

I would hope that makes my position on the matter clear enough. But in case it doesn't.

Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination. But gender roles are still a problem, especially for the people who are forced into the roles they do not like.

But... even if I made posts that completely contradict everything I said (and I do that sometimes when trying out arguments for sides I don't normally support), that does not invalidate anything in the current posts.

>The issue as best I see it is that there isn't any one cause here. So when you look at the roster of Silicon Valley CEOs and see row after row of white, male faces you could say that it's because tech is racist/sexist and prevents women/people of color from ascending to management positions in companies.

Or it could be that CEOs are likely to result from certain factors that were only open to white men historically, but whose factors have been fixed. Even if we waved a magic wand and fixed every discrimination problem ever tonight, tomorrow you'll still see the effects of past discrimination that would have to work their way out of society. So the question would then be, do we engage in further discrimination to try to counter act the effects of past discrimination?

>for the simple biological reason that the mother can breast-feed, while a father can't.

While the father normally is unable to do so without effort like a woman is, they do have all the equipment and their are ways to get it functioning. Somehow I don't think people would be for that option.

>It doesn't account for differences in industry, job title, experience, etc. It's super broad.

It also doesn't account for full time covering a wide number of hours worked. Full time can be 37 hours a week or 45 hours a week, can comparing them as both just being 'full time' misses quite a lot.

>This is in large part because care for family members(children and elderly parents usually) is more often foisted upon women in our society than on men.

How it is more often foisted upon women? The social pressure on men to take deadly jobs and to work longer hours is equal to the social pressure on women to choose careers where they can take time off and be with their kids. If anything, I rather be with my kid than stuck an extra 20 hours in the office... one of these pressures is for something most people find more desirable than the other.

>We need to de-stigmatize flexible schedules.

So are we aiming for more men to take flexible schedules or for pay to not suffer when someone takes flexible schedules? Because if you want the former, it is more about the pressure to earn than the stigma on flexible work schedules. And if it is the latter, how is this fair to the people who don't get the flexible work schedules? I think the deeper problem is why are women forced in the child care role and men into the bread winning roles and how to fix that (which you do mention).

>I'm confused by your comment.

I took their comment to be commentary on how there is still an insistence by many in society that there exists a gender gap even when many studies have given evidence that the gap is explained by a variety of factors such as work life balance.

It would be nice if the discussion could move onto issues such as why there is a gender difference in work life balance desires, in hours of overtime worked, in work place death rates, etc. But we still seem to be stuck having to explain that the earth doesn't have four corners.

>if men are being promoted more often at the same experience/education level

Instead of shifting the goal post, form a hypothesis that men are promoted more even when you control for factors such as education, experience, and work life balance, and then see if that is the case.

>That, of course, is a big if. And previous data from Dice found about a $10,000 pay gap between men and women if not controlled for those factors.

So what you are saying is that more experienced and more educated people get paid more? The horror! Seriously though, what is the problem with more experienced and educated people getting paid more?

Yes. They should consider a given plan and look at the costs and the benefits. Kinda like when they drop bombs. Be it normal bombing, the fire bombing of Kyoto, or using nuclear bombs.

>I'm not a counselor myself, but I have several in my family. It has been my impression that therapists would not be interested in committing you unless there was an immediate threat to you or someone else.

The threat of me using a gun, no matter how unlikely it actually is, leads to me being banned from having a gun in quite a lot of places. Also, people will often not accurate take into account the chance of something happening when deciding how they should act.

>Getting committed by a therapist you are seeing is very rare

There are many very rare things people take extreme precaution to avoid.

>Would you want it to be impossible to commit patients without consent, and risk more people committing suicide?

But more people would see therapists and thus less people would commit suicide overall. The choice is between a lower total suicide rate or a lower suicide rate in a subset which therapist are exposed to. And I'm not really surprised therapist opted for the one that is directly more visible.

>voluntarily (i.e. seeing a therapist) or by some sort of court mandate (if a person accused of a crime displays signs of mental illness

So what you are saying is that if I voluntarily seek a therapist, I could end up committed, but if I don't, then I have to have done something bad enough for me to be in front of the judge first. And people wonder why we have such issues with our mental health care system.

(Not that I've done anything that would get me committed, but say I was feeling depressed or something... why would I risk it?)

Do we count the men she can get help using social leverage? One only needs to watch the videos of domestic violence experiments where they swap genders. The reactions show that while men might be able to win if they were isolated on an island, the total power within society is not in the man's favor. Unless you are in a culture which tolerates DV regardless of gender, in which case men do have it better.

Which gender gets killed most often at work because of a social pressure that your value is determined by having a job, so if the only job options are dangerous, you best take one anyways?

Unless we can get a well defined and agreed upon definition of 'more social pressed' and a way to measure such, we could spend all day running in circles on this issue.

I'm thankful that my calculus courses were extremely heavy in showing how the tricks actually worked. It wasn't on the level of grad school analysis, but the professor pulled no punches and we went extremely in depth.

Years later when I was learning multi-variable calculus, I found most of it easy because, even having forgotten most of the tricks within those years, the method behind the madness was still there.

>I assume that the options are intended for people that are bad at math.

It does appear to be a way to get employees for cheaper than market rates by taking advantage of an arbitrage in employee lack of understand of the financial and legal issues concerning stocks.

It is also bad statistics.

The expert points out that it is 1 in a million. The jury will think this means that there is a 99.9999% chance this guy is guilty.

But how it works (assuming the DNA is the only evidence to connect this guy to the crime) is that in a city of 100 million, there are 100 possible people who would match, so the actual chance this one guy who was found by DNA match is actually the guilty one is only 1%.

People are willing to convict if given 99.9999% certainty. But who would be willing to convict with only 1% certainty?

One of the biggest issues with thinking innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to courts is that courts are not divorced from public opinion. The whole 'tough on crime' stance happens because in public opinion, a guy is guilty with far less evidence than the court needs. If the court cannot also find them guilty, the public sees this as a problem. Nothing direct happens, but as this occurs time and time again people begin to vote for those who don't allow this 'miscarriage of justice' to continue to occur. So over time, the public selects for people who act in ways that do not support innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. DAs willing to ignore evidence. Judges willing to present cops as being more trustworthy a source (such as allowing them to show up in uniform). And even crime labs who are a little willing to help convict the guy who is 'obviously' guilty.

In short, because public opinion eventually impacts the courts through some path, if the people don't believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the case of public opinion, then the courts will eventually lose that focus as well.

Part of the way through earning a degree in social science I found I had acquired an amazing power. I can take almost any research paper in a social science and poke enough holes in it that anyone who doesn't like the results will no longer accept it.

>In mathematics, multiple authors are always listed alphabetically by family name; ie there is no "first" or "second" author.

Is there any research showing this standard to be fair? People pay more attention to the first item of a list than to the middle ones, making me think that one's position on such a list could have a small benefit. Less important if there are overall less multiple name papers, which it seems from the rest of your comment, but still a factor as long as multiple names on a paper do happen.

>Maybe I'm getting older myself (30's), but the way that racism, homophobia, etc. is being handled by the young is troubling at best, facist at worst.

What I see is the way that free speech is being handled when it involves something offensive. But this is not something unique among young individuals; all that is changed is the topics. Which generation was around when obscenity was allowed as an exception to the First Amendment?