"This was something you could have learned from NPR over a year ago."

True, that's kind of the appeal of him for me. It's like Wayne's World if Wayne and Garth grew up in W. Mass behind the Tofu Curtain and were in to NPR instead of classic rock.

That said, I couldn't find anything particularly substantial about this with a couple simple searches of NPR's archives. There was one small report from 6 months ago about country rankings for health care, education and wages that mentions the pay cap narrowing, but that's all I saw.

So what's the algorithm? He goes out of the way to show how the 77% number is generated, then states there is an advanced better one that says it's really 91%, but doesn't show it.

You both know this algorithm (unless, like Pickman, you are sitting here full of shit), so what is it?

What are you even talking about?

I am raving against the Middle of the Coward's Road philosophy of modern Americans. You know, impotent raaaaage!

"I agree with X against Y, but so do shit people, so I am going to say X and Y are both invalid because it's somehow in the middle of both, though I really mean X is true and Y is wrong, but am afraid to say it."

You know, what poeTV calls "being a moderate" by being indistinguishable from a right wing radical.

If you want people to be more transparent with their affiliations, maybe you shouldn't assume the one side is always right and the other always wrong, and then call them names for not being on your side.

Your outrage at people who don't agree with you causes this you chode.

That's such a complete misrepresentation of the content of the video I'm not even going to bother.

Bro, do you even algorithm?

What are you even talking about?

jesus christ meme, take a nap or have a juice or something

None of you can validate this video. It doesn't matter if I shat in my hand and rubbed it on your children to offend your sensibilities, this remains the same.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2014/05 /19/90039/explaining-the-gender-wage-gap/

Wherever this article has a "some critics use this to argue" or "this could be used to argue" it's one of this guy's arguments.

That 9-11% crap he keeps repeating is not validated by the data he uses.

I admit I don't have time to read that whole article right now but what I have read of it doesn't contradict this video, it seems to agree that the "$.77 on the dollar" meme is a colloquialism (to use the article's own word) and the disagreement between it and Pakman is more along the lines of whether it's preferable to use that colloquialism or not.

Fair enough, but you should read it. It gives examples of how in some sectors women actually make more, and then compares that to the sectors where they don't and shows the gap is waaaay wider than 9-11%. This guy cherry picks hard and then comes to conclusions not represented in the data. The 77% thing he uses as a red herring to give credibility to his real number, and the issue, the 9-11% which is just a farce. Until I hit the disclaimer paragraphs in the article I thought I was wrong, since this guy slings the same data, but it's for a different conclusion.

I'm standing firm that this guy is a weasel mysoginist trying to use real data for a false conclusion to downplay the inequality women face by saying both sides are wrong. I maintain this is still a common poe tactic.

You'd be correct, but a brown woman makes even less than he does.

Basically, if you're a non-white lady, you get hit with two pay gaps at once. A Latina woman makes just over half of what a white man does.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

Actions? To bring about tangible solutions?

Fuck you, shitlord garbage person.

i think there's probably a cognitive bias of sorts in effect, to where women/p.o.c. who are paid less would be subject to "(ii)a merit system" or some other easily-weasled-out-of provision. that's really the whole problem; "we pay this woman of color less because she hasn't been working here as long/doesn't have as important of a job/didn't ask for as much!".

Personally I'm torn between wanting to close the wage gap on one hand and being ideologically opposed to wage labor in general (while recognizing that it's what we are stuck with right now and we need to deal with the immediate situation and its short term consequences).

How do you fight for gender equality in an inherently exploitative economic system without validating that system?


Would gender and ethnic parity in the corporate leadership class actually be progress?

Come to think of it, I don't even need to post this stuff anymore, there's now a pretty good Susan Faludi piece about it:

http://thebaffler.com/salvos/feminism-for-them

what a great article, thank you. i see this divide in much of the 4th wave of feminism- half are committed to gender & ethnic parity as a revolutionary politic, a means to subvert capitalist patriarchy and oppression; half are busy exchanging actual power for the trappings of power, the now-classic bait-and-switch of consumerist capitalism which men have been falling victim to for decades.

the revolutionary half are oftentimes (in my experience) stuck in echo chambers with each other, and spend a lot of time in these weird pursuits of enemies that remind me of nothing so much as stories of 'zeal contests' during the cultural revolution in mao's china, where groups of students would inform on each other to the secret police for not being ideologically 'pure' enough, for instance.

the capitalist half are committed to their paths mostly by, as far as i can see, the unconscious acceptance of their own privilege in one form or another. doubling down on feeding the beast is the act of a person who either has nothing left to lose or doesn't understand how oppressive the beast is.

the left is eating itself.

i dislike this video.