Red Pill Documentary

And that is not to say that there isn't discrimination but I think it becomes somewhat of a ghost chase when we try to balance for something to what we believe should be 50-50, on what basis exactly?

what is there that says that in an ideal world without discrimination men and women would go for the same jobs to the same extent. Frankly I think that's a very weird proposition. And yet a lot of feminists push for filling a female quota, effectively actually discriminating against the men who would lose out on job opportunities despite the better merits.
 
Surprisingly, the Wikipedia article on the gender pay gap is pretty robust. It cites a lot of of studies and reliable statistical resources. I feel overwhelmed with it actually. Maybe I'm insufficiently critical about this. I can't accept that the gender pay gap is closed or can be explained by other factors. There is too much evidence to the contrary for me to accept that proposition. Others might accept it on good grounds though, I'm not sure
 
Wyote said:
The important aspect of the wage gap discussion as it pertains to "first world problems" is that men and women choose different professions and in addition to this more men are top tier earners. It has very little to do with an average man vs woman. They are very much on equal ground but again they do choose different professions and generally ones chosen by men have higher earning potential. So we have to either encourage women to go into those professions or give better pay to the professions they do choose. Society doesn't value those professions as highly, which is really fucking stupid imho.

Anyway, the whole 77 cents to a dollar bit is a complete lie. But there is disparity with regard to professions and women holding top positions.
Click to expand...

Also my gf has her masters and is getting her PhD in I/O psychology (work psych) so I'm not in any way talking out of my ass here. I've seen the data with my own eyes lol.
 
invisible said:
I can't accept that the gender pay gap is closed
Click to expand...

I mean, things are always in flux. Data collection is inherently flawed in many ways. We have some solid basis for trends though.
 
Wyote said:
I mean, things are always in flux. Data collection is inherently flawed in many ways. We have some solid basis for trends though.
Click to expand...

The vast quantities of data collected internationally from robust sources and dealt with by excellent research suggests to me that the gap is real and persistent, so therefore as far as my own judgment goes I can't accept the proposition that the gap is meaningfully closed. I understand however that others may have good reasons for accepting that the gap is closed and I am fine with that.
 
invisible said:
The vast quantities of data collected internationally from robust sources and dealt with by excellent research suggests to me that the gap is real and persistent
Click to expand...

The gap is real yeah. That's not what's being disputed. But anyway, carry on.
 
Wyote said:
The gap is real yeah. That's not what's being disputed. But anyway, carry on.
Click to expand...

OK, then I'm not sure what exactly is being disputed, or how exactly to phrase my disagreement to communicate what I'm trying to say. I seem to be getting confused about this, so I'll try and explain myself more clearly. For me, what I mentioned previously about the integrity of the data and the quality of the treatments that it has been given, is enough to suggest to me, that the gender gap cannot be meaningfully explained by other variables or differences such as choice of occupation or maternity leave, and is not limited to differences in pay of top tier managers. It seems to me that on this thread, this general idea was being disputed, and that's what I was trying to say that I don't accept. I am just trying to express my own personal perspective on this, I hope this clearly communicates what I am trying to say about my own personal perspective.
 
@invisible I am more confused now. Sorry. Either you aren't understanding the "robust information" properly or the point of dispute. Or both. Or you just want to believe. That's fine.
 
At McDonald's whether you are male or female, line cooks both make $7.25/ hour and get 35 hours per week. No pay gap problems with that progressive institution.
 
James said:
I'd have to say the "equal pay" issue is very clearly unfair to women.
Click to expand...
Well as I said before, the pay gap is usually not tabulated correctly. They take the amount of money men earned in a year and the amount of money women earned in that year and compare those two numbers and that's it. Men, statistically speaking, work more full time jobs than women (that might be about to change soon but for reasons other than what we're talking about) and men also statistically work more overtime than women. So if you work longer hours you are going to earn more money, but the added effort to adjust your 77 cents on the dollar nonsense to reflect these facts just isn't worth it, especially when it ruins your narrative that women are treated vastly differently for no good reason. I, of course, don't rule out the possibility that there is a pay gap, only do I mention that it is exaggerated.

I have a friend who works in.... well I don't fully understand what he does I guess but it has something to do with the manufacturing of electronics as best as I can comprehend it. In his line of work he comes into regular contact with toxic and corrosive chemicals and he's handled some stuff that would literally and not figuratively melt his flesh if he wasn't wearing his hazard suit. All of his coworkers are male. This is not due to the fact that they exclude women, they will take anyone who is willing to work there. It just seems to be the case that no woman wants to work where theoretically her face could be melted off by corrosive chemicals. Hence, we have an example of a male dominated work environment without misogynistic policy creating it.
Wyote said:
I mean, things are always in flux. Data collection is inherently flawed in many ways. We have some solid basis for trends though.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered about polling accuracy when they call people up and ask them their political affiliations. The only data you get is from people who are willing to gab on the phone with you, you don't get the politically active people who hang up on pollsters immediately.
 
Reason With Logic Filling said:
Well as I said before, the pay gap is usually not tabulated correctly. They take the amount of money men earned in a year and the amount of money women earned in that year and compare those two numbers and that's it. Men, statistically speaking, work more full time jobs than women (that might be about to change soon but for reasons other than what we're talking about) and men also statistically work more overtime than women. So if you work longer hours you are going to earn more money, but the added effort to adjust your 77 cents on the dollar nonsense to reflect these facts just isn't worth it, especially when it ruins your narrative that women are treated vastly differently for no good reason. I, of course, don't rule out the possibility that there is a pay gap, only do I mention that it is exaggerated.

I have a friend who works in.... well I don't fully understand what he does I guess but it has something to do with the manufacturing of electronics as best as I can comprehend it. In his line of work he comes into regular contact with toxic and corrosive chemicals and he's handled some stuff that would literally and not figuratively melt his flesh if he wasn't wearing his hazard suit. All of his coworkers are male. This is not due to the fact that they exclude women, they will take anyone who is willing to work there. It just seems to be the case that no woman wants to work where theoretically her face could be melted off by corrosive chemicals. Hence, we have an example of a male dominated work environment without misogynistic policy creating it.

I've always wondered about polling accuracy when they call people up and ask them their political affiliations. The only data you get is from people who are willing to gab on the phone with you, you don't get the politically active people who hang up on pollsters immediately.
Click to expand...

The issues are complex, there's no doubt about it. In this thread though, I think it's important to make clear that it's about building a fair system. Not an "anti women" thing.

At the upper tier, it's undeniable. It's a boys club. And I use that word "boys" deliberately.
 
James said:
I think it's important to make clear that it's about building a fair system. Not an "anti women" thing.
Click to expand...
Because if you even suggest that men have to deal with things that women don't many of them take it as a personal attack on their rights? I've noticed.
James said:
At the upper tier, it's undeniable. It's a boys club. And I use that word "boys" deliberately.
Click to expand...
But is that solely because of patriarchy? In the U.S. there are a lot of tottering old senile bats trundling through the corridors of power because their super-pacs can outspend newcomers be they male or female; black or white. Also a lot of these people run unopposed, the door is wide open for women or even just anyone more than a bit younger than 100 years of age to challenge them and yet they go unchallenged. Running for office is a grueling thing and not everyone wants to put their life under a microscope. So the incumbents remain indefinitely in the meantime.
 
Reason With Logic Filling said:
Because if you even suggest that men have to deal with things that women don't many of them take it as a personal attack on their rights? I've noticed.

But is that solely because of patriarchy? In the U.S. there are a lot of tottering old senile bats trundling through the corridors of power because their super-pacs can outspend newcomers be they male or female; black or white. Also a lot of these people run unopposed, the door is wide open for women or even just anyone more than a bit younger than 100 years of age to challenge them and yet they go unchallenged. Running for office is a grueling thing and not everyone wants to put their life under a microscope. So the incumbents remain indefinitely in the meantime.
Click to expand...

I think when you talk to women as a friend, they usually have a great deal of perspective and understanding of the issues men have to deal with. In terms of emotional intelligence, I'd put women generally, as way ahead of most men.

The age thing you mention is a "staring us in the face" problem. It's not about gender or discrimination, that's a reality check.
 
James said:
I think when you talk to women as a friend, they usually have a great deal of perspective and understanding of the issues men have to deal with. In terms of emotional intelligence, I'd put women generally, as way ahead of most men.
Click to expand...
That has always been my experience with women, but that's as friends in private. If you discuss men's issues publicly people (and not just women) will freak out like you're talking about bigfoot or something outlandish. Which is the baffling part.
James said:
The age thing you mention is a "staring us in the face" problem. It's not about gender or discrimination, that's a reality check.
Click to expand...
That was my point @James! That a lot of this stuff has a multitude of causes and aspects to it and it doesn't all just boil down to men being evil/solely responsible for the problem even in cases when sexism does contribute to a problem.
 
Last edited:
According to various sources collected on 2015 (swedish wikipedia - "löneskillnader mellan män och kvinnor") the compensated wage gap in Sweden over all sectors is roughly 4.2 percent. I shouldn't call that minuscule, that was wrong on my part and belittling of a problem. I find it interesting though that a similar study when done on the public sector where (as stated on the wiki) more fine-grained work areas can be defined, the wage gap shrinks down to 0.9 percent, which I personally find quite remarkable.
 
Elis said:
According to various sources collected on 2015 (swedish wikipedia - "löneskillnader mellan män och kvinnor") the compensated wage gap in Sweden over all sectors is roughly 4.2 percent. I shouldn't call that minuscule, that was wrong on my part and belittling of a problem. I find it interesting though that a similar study when done on the public sector where (as stated on the wiki) more fine-grained work areas can be defined, the wage gap shrinks down to 0.9 percent, which I personally find quite remarkable.
Click to expand...
Swedish Man Tax had little chance of success but they tried anyway.

EDIT: and you will notice that the proposed reason for the tax was to punish men's violent behavior towards women... even though they planned to apply the tax to all men indiscriminately. Imagine what goes through your head when you're paying a tax because of your gender; because people of your gender do something that you personally have never done- if the roles were reversed and women had to pay a tax for something negative that not all women do, what do you think their reaction would be?
 
Last edited:
I'm curious about the documentary. There are some areas in need of a men's rights advocacy. Child custody laws are weighed heavily against men. Sexual and physical violence by women against men isn't taken very seriously. Stories of young boys preyed upon by older women are met with shaming and mockery. I think the actual MRA is a bane to that cause though. Just like those few vocal feminists who shout about men being evil makes some people take feminism less seriously.

As far as the whole pay gap thing. I did research this once, and as others have said the 79 cents o the dollar thing is inaccurate. That there are a lot more factors to take into account. At the same time, when women are in the same job, with the same amount of experience, working the same hours as men, there's still a discrepancy. I think it was around 8 cents on the dollar less. So there's still a problem there.

Also in regards to men working in higher paid jobs than women. I don't think it's a misogynistic thing (though there's plenty of that in certain high paying work sectors), but more of a societal thing. While cultural norms are changing, there was (and still is) a push to conform to gender stereotypes. For a long time engineering, technology, investment banking were boys clubs. And while that's changed, that image still lingers. So I don't think it's just a case of women preferring fields with lower stress, and . Though that may be a factor too.
 
I think what's interesting in the light of mens right, at least when it comes to discrimination in workplaces, is how not only we address these problems but how we intend to combat these inequalities. I don't know what legislative power this currently holds, but what you see in Sweden is men being openly discriminated against on the basis of filling a women quota.

A friend of mine spoke out on this. Working in the game industry he said was that women in the art department get a pass even when their male counterparts have better merits. Most women in the field go for art and design, over more technical aspects such as programming, which the work place doesn't account for when trying to balance the women to men ratio, effectively making it a much tougher field of work to get into as a man.

Another area that caught my attention recently is university course material where it's either been passed or in the makings that female authors should cover a certain quota of the studied material. I get where this is coming from, but I still have a hard time fathoming how one can come up with this idea without seeing glaring problems. It is being debated, but it's being actuated on at some universities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top