Linekers salary

[StringerBell]

27 minutes ago, Norman said:

A country that has freedom of movement, freedom of thought, freedom of speech and oppurtunites that few countries can match, and most cannot believe is attainable.

If you think the 'old boy's network' is the real problem in gender pay at levels where you can negotiate your own contract and pay, then i'd advise to look into a bit more.

It has more to do with other things, rather than the patriarchy and having boobs.

I'm not denying it doesn't exist, but @StringerBell has already posted evidence of the differences in men and women at a deeper level.

I can’t remember if I posted any, I’m sure I have at some point. But yeah that’s what the psychologists and biologists tend to say. There’s some stuff in James Damores memo that he was sacked for.

To put it all down to discrimination is absurd. Men and women have general differences which largely explains pay gaps.

[McRainy]

39 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

You’re ‘indeed’ing to someone who thinks its more accurate to describe the meritocracy as a patriarchy 

 

49 minutes ago, Norman said:

It has more to do with other things, rather than the patriarchy and having boobs.

I don’t think I’ve ever reduced the complexities of power inequality to having boobs. I’m pretty sure I’ve consistently said that class trumps gender, if we have to reduce it to these simplified oppositions. 

I also agreed that the women we are talking about are privileged and already reaping the benefits thereof, but pointed out that in relation to their male colleagues they are consistently undervalued. I don’t think those statements are mutually exclusive, or particularly controversial. 

[McRainy]

30 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Men and women have general differences which largely explains pay gaps.

If you’re going to make a statement like that, it’s incumbent on you to provide the evidence; show how these supposed differences inevitably play out as vastly different levels of performance and renumeration, thus ruling out the possibility of discrimination. 

[eddie]

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

I can’t remember if I posted any, I’m sure I have at some point. But yeah that’s what the psychologists and biologists tend to say. There’s some stuff in James Damores memo that he was sacked for.

To put it all down to discrimination is absurd. Men and women have general differences which largely explains pay gaps.

Indeed.

There's no such thing as an old girls network.

[Carnero]

34 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

 

I don’t think I’ve ever reduced the complexities of power inequality to having boobs. I’m pretty sure I’ve consistently said that class trumps gender, if we have to reduce it to these simplified oppositions. 

Pretty sure he's male, even if he does have teeny tiny hands.

[McRainy]

Just now, Saul Pimpson said:

Pretty sure he's male, even if he does have teeny tiny hands.

Yes, that’s another word that is forever lost to our vocabulary. 

[Norman]

42 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

If you’re going to make a statement like that, it’s incumbent on you to provide the evidence; show how these supposed differences inevitably play out as vastly different levels of performance and renumeration, thus ruling out the possibility of discrimination. 

Google Jordan Peterson. 

[McRainy]

35 minutes ago, Norman said:

Google Jordan Peterson. 

It seems strange that he describes himself as a Christian Existentialist, but seemingly misunderstands Derrida and postmodernism.

His opposition to human rights legislation as a Marxist conspiracy to destroy Western civilisation is just absurd and he rightly received written warnings for his stance. 

[Norman]

3 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

It seems strange that he describes himself as a Christian Existentialist, but seemingly misunderstands Derrida and postmodernism.

His opposition to human rights legislation as a Marxist conspiracy to destroy Western civilisation is just absurd and he rightly received written warnings for his stance. 

Lol.

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, StringerBell said:

 we generally do live in a meritocracy in which you’re rewarded for your work.

We live in a *type* of meritocracy yes - a badly broken one. A true functioning meritocracy would reward those the most who contribute the most to society. Nurses, Teachers, Firefighters etc. Instead of Advertising Execs, Board Members etc

Fine if that doesn't bother you but it surprises me that you can be so passionate about other stuff that arguably matters less

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

49 minutes ago, Norman said:

Google Jordan Peterson. 

Thanks - I googled him. had never heard of him.

Now I know he's a tit

[McRainy]

5 minutes ago, Norman said:

Lol.

Presumably that’s the end of his contribution to this discussion then. 

?

[Norman]

2 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Presumably that’s the end of his contribution to this discussion then. 

?

As you spent 40 minutes trying to find something to discredit him with instead of actually listening to something he has taught for 30 years. Then yes.

It made me laugh.

[Norman]

5 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Thanks - I googled him. had never heard of him.

Now I know he's a tit

Your opinion. It's usually wrong anyway .

[McRainy]

20 minutes ago, Norman said:

As you spent 40 minutes trying to find something to discredit him with instead of actually listening to something he has taught for 30 years. Then yes.

It made me laugh.

I’d heard of him over his opposition to the C-16 bill, but that’s not really the point. His theories about postmodern relativism and the complexity of competing oppressions are nonsense, if for no other reason than that he claims to oppose the stifling of free speech by attempting to stifle free speech.

He’s a great example of how attempts to promote the rights of the individual at the expense of the group ironically lead to taking an authoritarian position. 

[StringerBell]

39 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

If you’re going to make a statement like that, it’s incumbent on you to provide the evidence; show how these supposed differences inevitably play out as vastly different levels of performance and renumeration, thus ruling out the possibility of discrimination. 

 

Not really. You’re making a claim of your own. We would need a comprehensive body of multivariate analyses rather than univariate analyses, which don’t really tell us anything more than what people are looking to find.

I’m not going to spend my break before getting back to work looking for research papers. But to take just two factors - we know agreeableness and neuroticism effect salary and effectiveness, and we also know women are more prone to being agreeable and have a higher propensity to neuroses. And these are only two factors. The big five personality traits can be broken down further still.

To explain a gap that is, what I can gather to be anywhere between 3-10% depending where you look, as due to discrimination seems utterly absurd.

[StringerBell]

54 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Thanks - I googled him. had never heard of him.

Now I know he's a tit

You have heard of him, you said he was alt-right some months back. Who’s the tit?

[McRainy]

2 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

women have a higher propensity to neuroses.

This wouldn’t be because the psychiatric profession is typically dominated by men, by any chance. If you value individual liberty then you really shouldn’t be supporting corrupt mechanisms of control like psychiatry. 

As for your other point, it really is much simpler than that. If one group gets consistently paid less for doing the same thing, then discrimination is taking place. It isn’t just a matter of negotiating individual contacts, the same pattern exists across the board. 

[StringerBell]

1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

We live in a *type* of meritocracy yes - a badly broken one. A true functioning meritocracy would reward those the most who contribute the most to society. Nurses, Teachers, Firefighters etc. Instead of Advertising Execs, Board Members etc

Fine if that doesn't bother you but it surprises me that you can be so passionate about other stuff that arguably matters less

 

 

Obviously public sector workers are never going to be extremely well paid. 

As for everyone else, that’s for the market to determine.

[StringerBell]

10 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

This wouldn’t be because the psychiatric profession is typically dominated by men, by any chance. If you value individual liberty then you really shouldn’t be supporting corrupt mechanisms of control like psychiatry. 

As for your other point, it really is much simpler than that. If one group gets consistently paid less for doing the same thing, then discrimination is taking place. It isn’t just a matter of negotiating individual contacts, the same pattern exists across the board. 

Omfg