MRAs refuse to answer these questions

1. If gender pay gap is due to evolutionary psychology/biology how come it vary from 5% to 30% in OECD countries, and 5% to 20% in the West?

2. If female employee is economically more risky to hire than a male due to parental leave, why wouldn't for-profit companies discriminate against women?

3. Studies have shown that in most fields (although exceptions exist), job applications with a female name are less likely to get a response compared to identical job applications with a male name. Wouldn't it be weird if this would not contribute to a pay gap between the genders?

Other urls found in this thread:

oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Studies have shown that in most fields (although exceptions exist), job applications with a female name are less likely to get a response compared to identical job applications with a male name. Wouldn't it be weird if this would not contribute to a pay gap between the genders?
why would a man want to work with a women? Women are in general awful to work with compared to men. Having a mixed office drops productivity and destroys positive work cultures. the better question is why did we ever pretend that wasn't the case?

>Not wanting woman around
>Being 100% heterosexual

Pick one

Don't 2&3 cancel each other out?

1. Different countries have different laws and social situations which change the extent of the gender pay gasp. A better question is, if this isn't innate behavior, why is it expressed in nearly every society across the globe and throughout history?

2. Laws and social norms prevent this to some degree.

3. Job applications with a "I'll probably quit in a few years when I become pregnant" note added on may see a smaller response rate. If women were paid less for the same work, wouldn't you expect their applications would see a higher response rate? Wouldn't companies discriminate against men?

2.

1. source

2. they do

3. because of point 2

No, the very opposite. Learn how to think.

1. oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm

Funny how easy it is to make MRAs admit that discrimination against women does exist in the labour market.

Well if the gap varies 5%-30% it shows it's mostly a social construct, not an innate biological trait.

>muh wage gap

Go fuck yourself shill

Sage

1.) women are not payed differently salary or wage wise in the u.s, but they do make less money on average over their lifetime, its hard to have a high paying time demanding job when you want to raise children. On top of this women often choose more social orientated fields that usually net less cash.

2.) because if they were to it would turn into a pr shit show. Companies have clear histories of filling diversity quotas in order to look more progressive. This is why companies feel the need to hire minorities even if they are under qualified.

3.) I dont know why its so hard for people to understand why men would subconsciously prefer other men to work with over women. Men make friendships with men and women make friendships with other women, it has always been like this. When you have to work with someone its so much better to have something in common with them so its not always awkward to be around them, A man is more likely to have more in common with another man than a women.
and even taking this into consideration women, on a wage to wage and salary basis, are paid as much as men. One deciding factor as to why a women may make slightly less is that they are less likely to ask for promotions / raises wich is not the employers fault.


no im not an mra faggot, just someone with half a brain.

1. Every country is different culturally. If it isnt due to psychology and biology why isnt there a clamoring for more women in hard manual labor jobs? It cant be because women dont want those jobs right?

2. Because than that wouldnt be discrimination. If they are less qualified for their job because of their economical risk that isnt discrimination to not hire them. Its not discrimination to not want to hire someone less qualified for the position.

3. Id love to see those studies otherwise I am going to just assume youre cherry picking.

People explaining the pay gap can never seem to tell me how I have a job if I cost 5-22% more than a female...?

AGW is false though. This is the only time in history a CO2 increase has coincided with higher temperatures.

1. Nobody is claiming that. The difference is due specialization resulting in a division of labor. Some people just aren't cut out for certain jobs

2. Because it's illegal...

3. I thought you just said they didn't discriminate in number 2...

Jesus fuck dude, that was easy

Does anyone care about Milo anymore ?
Wish he'd just disappear already, fucking controlled opposition Jew.

>man made climate change meme

Blue-pilled cunt.

All that is, is a way to infringe upon individual rights and sovereignty of nations because people are hysterically claiming that the sky is falling

>3. I thought you just said they didn't discriminate in number 2...

I didn't. Learn how to read.

>why wouldn't for-profit companies discriminate against women?
They literally do. Unless it's illegal, which it often is.

If it is due to biology how can it be 3 times larger in Sweden than in New Zealand?

1. Because different levels for affirmative action for females?

2. They do...

3. Actually, exact opposite. Recent study showed that for university positions, in *every single field except economics* a female applicant was favored over a male applicant.

Even if this wasn't the case, if being female provided some cost to the firm that wasn't showing up on a resume, this would make sense.

Glad we can agree that part of the gap is explaiend by dsicrimination.

Ok? I don't get why this makes you happy.

So your saying New Zealand has 3 times more affirmative action for women than Sweden, where the gap is 3 times larger?

1. There is no gender pay gap, studies don't tend to account for majors/job specialization. No shit your numbers will be skewed if you're comparing a bunch of school teachers to a bunch of oil rig workers (but women don't want the dirty jobs)

2 & 3. Because they don't, there's studies showing women have a 2-1 advantage over men when applying for the same STEM positions, 4-1 in some cases. Reason for this? Companies are desperate to hire women for diversity quotas.

I just answered that you fucking moron. Different policies and attitudes in different societies.

If it isn't biological, why is it a similar trend across the human race? There are no countries where women are at the top and men are underpaid and unemployed.

Lol what?

Women are paid almost identically to men in the same fields, you shitlord.
Also, seeing as how men have different cranial patterns than females, it is innate.

I think you are trolling

Because of laws.

Denying basic human biology is autistic.

You said why wouldn't they, implying they weren't while they should be.
If they already are discriminating, then the question posed in 2 is completely moot
In other words, you didn't think this through

And? There's absolutely nothing wrong with discrimination.
If an employee is going to make you less money then why would you hire them over someone who doesn't?

How is people who are less qualified for the job being turned away at a higher rate discrimination?

Forcing companies to hire woman (and blacks via affirmative action) is discrimination.

>hurr durr there is no male specific-stem-capable brain, we r all equl and shit
>2 weeks later
>>women work harder than men and are smarter, study confirms xDD

Yes, biology explains a small part, but its mostly due to policy & attitudes glad we can agree.

Yes but in some countries women go to high-income fields more than in others.

There is no pay gap =/= pay gap is reduced when controlled for other factors. Learn how to think.

Get married, dickflaps.

No you didn't understand at all. MRAs say women are not discriminated against in the labour market.


I simply pointed out that it's obvious that theres structural, economic incentives to discriminate.

>learn how to think
yeah, learn how to math and discern statistical significance before citing bullshit from the bureau of urban legend statistics

Learn how to think.

You asked why wouldn't they be discriminated against in 2.
If you already knew that they were, why would you ask such a question?

There are obvious reasons to discriminate, but it doesn't happen because it's illegal in most western countries. If anything, positive discrimination exists because of what a shitshow affirmative action is.

Whether incentives to discriminate exist or not is irrelevant when you're not allowed to do it by law.

Feminist tards beaten again.

What a shocker

...

Holy fuck, if you think that gender pay gap is real, kill yourself.

Why you people always forget the fact that women and men work a different kind of jobs?

Men are more likely work in labor-heavy and high-risk jobs, thus more pay. Women are more likely work in an office and low-risk jobs, thus less pay.

Also, there are different factors on salary. Experience, degree, and what university did he/she go to.

Just hang already.

"multiple studies from OECD, AAUW, and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5–6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, when wages were adjusted for different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and maternal/paternal leave. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiation skills and gender discrimination."

Can you answer the point 2. & 3.?

>The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiation skills

Men are better at negotiating for a higher salary than women.

Next question.

Biology is the source of some difference. Policy and society mitigate the innate differences to varying degrees in different societies.

Gender wage gap exists, but instead of being the "Woman earn less than men" that the politics teacher with an unusual nose told you about, it's the entirety that men in the nation earn vs the entirety than women in the nation earn. And because not all countries are the same, of course the gap will differ.
Faggot

>Yes but in some countries women go to high-income fields more than in others.
Yes but we are murrica not other countries, Achmed da pill.

>wanting women to fuck up perfect male working dynamics
>Europoor numales detected

>Men are better at negotiating for a higher salary than women.
Guess you never thought of the whore offering her body to you for a good deal. *Wink* *Wink*

The gender pay gap is a meme. Women earn less than men -on average- because women work less than men -on average- . Also men tend to work more dangerous jobs at higher pay than women. Pure and simple.

We're done here.

Men are better at negotiating? Seems like I had better hire men because if some roastie isn't smart enough to look after herself, how's she going to be able to look out for the company?

1. Women are cucks

2. Alpha cucks hired beta cucks to hire more cucks

3. Cucks are scared of women so theh avoid them and instead look for alphas to cuck them

>3
Except if women did the same job for a lower wage, they'd be hired exclusively. You're an idiot.

Why are you posting a picture of the creator of "castration day" as a MRA? don't you know she realized she was toxic for feminism and so switched over to shit start 24/7?

1) It's not, it's because women take shittier jobs
2) Because that's illegal
3) That's literally the opposite, companies are more pressured than ever to hire women or niggers for diversity. My roommate and me are studying the exact same thing, she has been directly offered internships and given half her tuition in scholarships just for being a woman, despite her GPA being 2.8 and mine being 3.9

Oh hey, I can cite stuff too!

"The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, “We are still trying to figure that out.”

"One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” In the past, women’s groups have ignored or explained away such findings."

"What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn’t the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn’t we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women’s supposedly inferior negotiating skills — not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW’s 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count “social science” as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that “social science” includes both economics and sociology majors."

Pt. 2

""Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and “media occupations” under a single rubric—“other white collar.” Says Furchtgott-Roth: “So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That’s not a comparison between people who do the same work.” With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most."

"And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage."

1. It varies because of state regulations trying to normalize pay between genders
2. State regulations
3. Men are more qualified

Lob me a couple more softies OP I really wanna think

>The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated

Nice weasel words. Try a real argument.

Due to parental leave system females are a larger economic risk to employ, woudn't it be against the interest of the empoyers not to discriminate?

>1
There is no pay gap, so how can it vary between 5% and 30%? Men and women earn the same for the same job. Multiple studies have shown this. At most, the difference is about 3% in some countries, but this can swing both ways.
Overall, men earn more than women, but this is because of the choices they make. Men take more risks than women, choose more demanding careers, they work more overtime, they have fewer sick days, they choose jobs that are more dangerous, etc. Men and women making different choices that result in different income levels is not discrimination and does not constitute a pay gap. It's the result of living in a free society where people can choose their own path in life, which is the purpose of equality.

>2
First of all, they don't do it because that would result in lawsuits or huge fines. Second, if women are an economic risk, then choosing a man over a woman is not discrimination. It's logic. They try to solve this imaginary problem by forcing paternal leave in some countries, but that's an artificial solution (make men worse), to a problem that doesn't even exist.

>3
You mean, the way men are discriminated against when trying to rent apartments? There is a huge preference for women, because of the assumption that they're less rowdy. Second, even if this was a problem, it would be outweighed by the extremely sexist, discriminatory practices that exist in every western country where women are hired ahead of better qualified men, due to gender quotas.
Anyway, if we assume that people would prefer hiring men over women if given the choice, why don't you consider that there might be a reason for that? Maybe their experience is that men tend to do a much better job than women. On average, women work harder than men in school and try to fill their resumes with all kinds of bullshit, but this does not translate to the real world. Compared to their resume, women under-perform when they're employed, while men over-perform.

If they do it for economic reasons (cause women make them less money) then its not actually discrimination.

Has anyone told them that the gender gap is caused by most CEOs being male, you know, the people who make billions annually?

The bias exists because of evolutionary predisposition. Through millennia our ancestors have noticed men get shit done, so it became advantageous to have a bias towards this thinking.

gender pay gap is an earnings gap due to women not being proactive in work.

they don't discriminate because that's the law nigger

citation needed

Yes, but it shouldn't be against the law

If you actually believe in Man Made Climate Change, you are a mongoloid and should be gassed for the sake of our species.

1. Because women have had more success getting more money for doing less work in some countries than others

2. I thought they did, I thought that was the whole narrative you're peddling

3. By the methods they currently use to evaluate the wage gap - yes. But then again, those methods are cockamamie bullshit.

K?

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between
>"there's no pay gap"
>"the gap is explained by careers".

Whatever the explanations are, they must differ a lot in New Zealand (5% gap) and in Sweden (15%). Now I happen to believe that those are due to labour market structures, not due to Swedish women being more free to choose what career to pick than in New Zealand. It certainly can't be something biological that explains the variation between countries.

>2
Yes, now you know what is meant by "institutional sexism". There's economic incentives in place that cause discrimination.

>Employer pays for the parental leave, so women are riskier to employ, because they use more parental leave. Having children hurts womens careers, which is causing the demographic crisis that the alt-right says it's so concerned about.

>Solution 1: Have state pay for the parental leave, not the employer
>Solution 2: Take the parental leave expenses equally from male and female, and let them choose how to split the parental leave between them.
>Solution 3: Give mothers 4 montsh of maternal leave, give fathers 4 months of paternal leave and let the parents choose who to give 4 months to freely choose from.

>3
>Men are discriminated in the housing markets
>Women can't be discriminated in the labour market

>even if this was a problem, it would be outweighed by the extremely sexist, discriminatory practices that exist in every western country where women are hired ahead of better qualified men, due to gender quotas.

Tiny proportion of western companies have gender quotas. Parental leave systems effect much larger part of the labour market.

Yes gender quotas are an example of institutional sexism, just like all-male draft. It's just a word your alt-right shills has turned to a buzzword to you.

who cares?

Just let people work without trying to control everything you communist faggot.