|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2015 07:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:18 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:02 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 06:10 ZasZ. wrote:On May 14 2015 05:32 killa_robot wrote:
[quote]
Wage gap isn't real dude. At the same level men and women are paid the same, only exceptions are due to men negotiating for more money upfront, while women are less likely to negotiate till later, and more likely to focus on non-monetary forms of compensation.
Slut shamming is an interesting double standard though.
As to why it's more preferable:
- Women are inherently trusted more
- Women can be seen with children without being pedophiles
- Paternity power (not even in custody, but in being the one who makes the absolute choice to keep the child or not)
- Women have more support programs
- Women have more initiative programs, to the point where even though men are now falling behind, focus is still on promoting women
- Women can actually show feelings without being shamed
- Women can work anywhere, while men are still shamed for choosing more "feminine" lines of work
- "Woman and children first" mentality
- Anything to do with relationships. Even now, it's still considered the norm for men to ask women out, propose, etc
Not to say it's all sunshine and rainbows for women, but you're certainly in denial if you think women are still behind men in first world countries. + Show Spoiler +Deny the wage gap if you want, but I've witnessed it first-hand in my workplace and even stand to benefit from it because the leadership at my company just doesn't get the bigger picture. It's caused a couple of friends of mind to leave and seek better opportunities elsewhere. Obviously this is an anecdote, but it is an example of how sexism in the workplace is a real problem.
As to your list:
-Are they? I don't know what your basis is for this claim.
-Do you assume men with children are pedophiles or something? I just assume he's their father unless I see weird behavior.
-Sure, this may be unfair, but its biologically driven and a fairly niche situation. If men are so concerned about not being able to terminate their partner's pregnancy, they should probably be using protection. Problem solved. Plus, if I wanted to include biological unfairness, I would have included pregnancy on my list for women.
-Women have more support programs because society has decided women need them more than men. That's like claiming affirmative action is a benefit to being black or that your power ranger bandaid is a benefit to cutting your arm open. We wouldn't need these programs if the underlying problems didn't exist.
-What is an initiative program?
-Shamed by who? Women who show their feelings in the workplace or to anyone other than their friends or lovers are still shamed, and men who aren't allowed to express feelings to their friends or lovers should find new friends and lovers. -Like being a male nurse? That stigma doesn't really exist anymore, and there are plenty of professions that women struggle to get into compared to men. Again the difference here is that while men may be "shamed" for working as a male nurse, they still have no problem actually getting hired as a male nurse. I'd rather be shamed and have a job than the other way around. + Show Spoiler +-Tradition is a strange bird, I won't argue with you there. But these customs have changed over time and will continue to change as society improves. It's a far more equal landscape on this front than it was even when I was in high school like 10 years ago. Last I checked women were having an easier time getting into male dominated jobs than men were having getting into female dominated jobs. I'll try to do out the source. Which makes a case for female privilege also existing, not for the dismissing of privilege as a concept. You seem to be using privilege to just mean bias. Why not just say bias? Because privilege denotes the benefits of being on the good side of patterns of bias. For one reason. It's also an ambiguous term that lazy SJWs and feminists can use at will, with no objective fact-checking required. I don't feel it's ambiguous in the slightest. It wasn't a concept that I came up with, I had the concept explained to me and at no point did I feel like I needed to tell them that they were using the wrong word for their concept. But there again I don't have an overpowering need to rename other peoples' things and tell them I'm correcting them when I do it. It's pretty rare that I hear someone, such as yourself, use the term privilege in an appropriate manner. Kudos to you for that. I only ever really hear the term used in ambiguous ways, frequently as 'check your privilege' in an effort to silence a voice. So it would seem that our experiences with the word differ. Check your privilege just means "Stop invalidating the experiences of people who experience things in a totally different way to you on the basis of your own experiences. Instead recognise your own privilege in not experiencing things in their way and try to be a bit more sympathetic." Now obviously there is a limit to how crazy someone's claims of their experience can get before you have to say "Listen, what you experience is so obviously nuts that I can't respect it. I'm sorry but men are not oppressing you with their knees". http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/There's also cases where you can say "Obviously I'm not you but I experience that shit literally all the time" like when feminists claim an exclusive right over feeling nervous as hell in a shady area at night. But between the two there is a sweet spot of "Yeah, you're right, I don't experience that and I'm willing to take your word on it that it really sucks".
No, the sweet spot is objectivity, not an arbitrary inclusion of bias and / or privilege to counteract bias / privilege.
Edit: you may be a bit contradictory here as well. The idea that one experience invalidates the other points to an oppression 'ladder'. Sharing experiences that are different or similar does not invalidate the other.
|
On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:06 ZasZ. wrote:On May 14 2015 06:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 06:44 BallinWitStalin wrote:[quote] 1) An unexplained wage gap exists, something along the lines of 5-8% I think. As far as economists can tell, there is no empirically observable/quantifiable reason for that gap to exist. Claiming that it doesn't exists is allowing your assumptions to over-ride the data. It's a hypothesis that sexism is responsible for that gap, but one that is difficult to test, so some level of assumption is operating there. However, the gap exists. As an interesting side-story to this, note that in the news in Canada a university just found that it was, for no reason, systematically paying female professors less than males, holding everything else equal. It fixed that issue immediately by increasing female pay to male pay standards. What is the likelihood that this is an isolated case, given that it occurred in what would be largely perceived as a "progressive" workplace? + Show Spoiler + 2) Women are trusted more -> Don't buy it. Pretty big assumption.
3) Women can be seen with children without being pedophiles -> Although I agree that this is potentially problematic, I suspect that males are much more likely to sexually abuse children than females. I am curious about whether you actually feel that police officers are justified in profiling black males, which is often a claim made by individuals who would identify as "right-wing". Do you believe that police are justified in doing so?
4) Paternity power (not even in custody, but in being the one who makes the absolute choice to keep the child or not) -> My suspicion is that child outcomes are generally better when given to female custody. Not universally, of course, but probably explains the bias in custody, and is a potentially studiable thing. I'm sure people have examined this, although I don't feel like looking this up in depth right now. With respect to the choice to keep the child (I assume you're talking abortion?), of course they should have the final say: it's their body, and there are serious long-term health issues associated with growing a child. It's not a very safe process, and it actually damages a woman's body even in best-case scenarios.
5) Women have more support programs + -Women have more initiative programs, to the point where even though men are now falling behind, focus is still on promoting women -> this is true, although changing. There is now a re-emphasis in school programming on helping at-risk male youth, something that will probably only increase over time (institutions generally have their own momentum and are slow to change, but I believe this one is changing).
6) Women can actually show feelings without being shamed -> not sure what machismo cultural context you live in, but there's very few contexts I can think of where I would be shamed by showing emotion while a woman wouldn't.
7) Women can work anywhere, while men are still shamed for choosing more "feminine" lines of work -> See number 6
8) "Woman and children first" mentality -> see number 6. But kids should (obviously) always come first anyways?
9) Anything to do with relationships. Even now, it's still considered the norm for men to ask women out, propose, etc -> Maybe in high school (again, see number 6). This is changing rapidly, though, women in my social spheres ask men out all the time. And while usually it is the man that "proposes" most of the time, pretty much all of my friends who have gotten married (and myself) have mutually agreed to prior to the official "proposal", which is really more of a "hey I got you a nice ring we're gonna get married and it's awesome!" event now. The data that economists have isn't super detailed. Yes, there remains a small <5% 'unexplained' wage gap, but the likelihood of that being due to sexism is nill. Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made so the sexism argument would have to rely on women being sexist towards women. It's also observable that men care more about pay than women, which may make a difference of monetary and non-monetary benefits accruing to the gender that values one more than the other entirely appropriate. Maybe it's different at other companies but HR at my company is not determining our pay that's done by the CEO/COO. I'm not sure how you can extrapolate "Women are represented heavily in HR" to "the wage gap can't be sexist." Does not compute without some sort of proof that at the overwhelming majority of companies, HR departments are solely responsible for payroll and have no outside influence whatsoever. HR usually is heavily involved with pay setting and hiring / firing decisions. Usually the payroll department is responsible for... payroll. But do you have statistics to support your assertion? The HR Function: Traditional Vs. Today
Every company – regardless of size, location or purpose – must deal with HR issues in a way that's best suited to its needs and situation. If you own a small business, you probably function as your own HR manager – that is, you personally oversee and conduct each classic HR function for your company: You recruit and hire, you set up compensation and benefits packages, and you write paychecks and keep appropriate records.
The chances are good, too, that you're the person responsible for training and developing the people you hire. And although you may not need to publish a company newsletter to inform staff about what's going on in the company, you probably make a point to keep them in the loop.
Larger companies have entire HR departments and typically employ specialists in areas such as benefits administration or 401(k) retirement plans. But smaller business owners who don't have the resources for such specialization must ensure that they are solid generalists – that is, they possess skills in several areas of the human resources function rather than one particular specialty.
The HR function, in general, has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. Some companies still take a highly structured, largely centralized approach to HR management. The majority of companies today, however, take a far more decentralized approach, with HR practitioners and line managers working cooperatively to develop and implement policies and programs. LinkGood enough? Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege.
You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits.
EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it?
Check your data bro.
|
Why are you even discussing that? As soon as wage numbers are adjusted for experience/field of work there is virtually no pay gap. The pay gap has in repeated analysis and in multiple countries been shown to be a hangover effect of women taking a majority of the maternity/paternity leave and women being more likely to work part-time/focus more on other benefits (more vacation for example) when negotiating pay.
|
On May 14 2015 08:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies compared to not being white. "Privilege" is a just term lazy social justice warriors use because they don't know how to do real research and analysis. No, it's not. Social sciences have produced a considerable amount of serious research on white/racial privilege in our societies. It's real research and analysis, that you're expectedly dismissing with a wave of your hand because the science contradicts your worldview.
this is of course all these studies also don't include affirmative action.
|
On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:06 ZasZ. wrote:On May 14 2015 06:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The data that economists have isn't super detailed. Yes, there remains a small <5% 'unexplained' wage gap, but the likelihood of that being due to sexism is nill. Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made so the sexism argument would have to rely on women being sexist towards women.
It's also observable that men care more about pay than women, which may make a difference of monetary and non-monetary benefits accruing to the gender that values one more than the other entirely appropriate. Maybe it's different at other companies but HR at my company is not determining our pay that's done by the CEO/COO. I'm not sure how you can extrapolate "Women are represented heavily in HR" to "the wage gap can't be sexist." Does not compute without some sort of proof that at the overwhelming majority of companies, HR departments are solely responsible for payroll and have no outside influence whatsoever. HR usually is heavily involved with pay setting and hiring / firing decisions. Usually the payroll department is responsible for... payroll. But do you have statistics to support your assertion? The HR Function: Traditional Vs. Today
Every company – regardless of size, location or purpose – must deal with HR issues in a way that's best suited to its needs and situation. If you own a small business, you probably function as your own HR manager – that is, you personally oversee and conduct each classic HR function for your company: You recruit and hire, you set up compensation and benefits packages, and you write paychecks and keep appropriate records.
The chances are good, too, that you're the person responsible for training and developing the people you hire. And although you may not need to publish a company newsletter to inform staff about what's going on in the company, you probably make a point to keep them in the loop.
Larger companies have entire HR departments and typically employ specialists in areas such as benefits administration or 401(k) retirement plans. But smaller business owners who don't have the resources for such specialization must ensure that they are solid generalists – that is, they possess skills in several areas of the human resources function rather than one particular specialty.
The HR function, in general, has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. Some companies still take a highly structured, largely centralized approach to HR management. The majority of companies today, however, take a far more decentralized approach, with HR practitioners and line managers working cooperatively to develop and implement policies and programs. LinkGood enough? Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro.
Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law.
Cite data bro.
|
United States43536 Posts
On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:06 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
Maybe it's different at other companies but HR at my company is not determining our pay that's done by the CEO/COO. I'm not sure how you can extrapolate "Women are represented heavily in HR" to "the wage gap can't be sexist." Does not compute without some sort of proof that at the overwhelming majority of companies, HR departments are solely responsible for payroll and have no outside influence whatsoever. HR usually is heavily involved with pay setting and hiring / firing decisions. Usually the payroll department is responsible for... payroll. But do you have statistics to support your assertion? The HR Function: Traditional Vs. Today
Every company – regardless of size, location or purpose – must deal with HR issues in a way that's best suited to its needs and situation. If you own a small business, you probably function as your own HR manager – that is, you personally oversee and conduct each classic HR function for your company: You recruit and hire, you set up compensation and benefits packages, and you write paychecks and keep appropriate records.
The chances are good, too, that you're the person responsible for training and developing the people you hire. And although you may not need to publish a company newsletter to inform staff about what's going on in the company, you probably make a point to keep them in the loop.
Larger companies have entire HR departments and typically employ specialists in areas such as benefits administration or 401(k) retirement plans. But smaller business owners who don't have the resources for such specialization must ensure that they are solid generalists – that is, they possess skills in several areas of the human resources function rather than one particular specialty.
The HR function, in general, has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. Some companies still take a highly structured, largely centralized approach to HR management. The majority of companies today, however, take a far more decentralized approach, with HR practitioners and line managers working cooperatively to develop and implement policies and programs. LinkGood enough? Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro.
Not at all, women are routinely sexist towards other women in a bunch of ways. Even on obvious shit like who is to blame for a rape when the woman flirted with her rapist women still consistently blame other women when asked. Women are totally sexist.
|
On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:06 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
Maybe it's different at other companies but HR at my company is not determining our pay that's done by the CEO/COO. I'm not sure how you can extrapolate "Women are represented heavily in HR" to "the wage gap can't be sexist." Does not compute without some sort of proof that at the overwhelming majority of companies, HR departments are solely responsible for payroll and have no outside influence whatsoever. HR usually is heavily involved with pay setting and hiring / firing decisions. Usually the payroll department is responsible for... payroll. But do you have statistics to support your assertion? The HR Function: Traditional Vs. Today
Every company – regardless of size, location or purpose – must deal with HR issues in a way that's best suited to its needs and situation. If you own a small business, you probably function as your own HR manager – that is, you personally oversee and conduct each classic HR function for your company: You recruit and hire, you set up compensation and benefits packages, and you write paychecks and keep appropriate records.
The chances are good, too, that you're the person responsible for training and developing the people you hire. And although you may not need to publish a company newsletter to inform staff about what's going on in the company, you probably make a point to keep them in the loop.
Larger companies have entire HR departments and typically employ specialists in areas such as benefits administration or 401(k) retirement plans. But smaller business owners who don't have the resources for such specialization must ensure that they are solid generalists – that is, they possess skills in several areas of the human resources function rather than one particular specialty.
The HR function, in general, has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. Some companies still take a highly structured, largely centralized approach to HR management. The majority of companies today, however, take a far more decentralized approach, with HR practitioners and line managers working cooperatively to develop and implement policies and programs. LinkGood enough? Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro.
You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men.
Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds?
Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States.
Source
I'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'.
Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'?
Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding.
|
United States43536 Posts
On May 14 2015 08:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 07:39 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:18 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:02 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 06:10 ZasZ. wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +Deny the wage gap if you want, but I've witnessed it first-hand in my workplace and even stand to benefit from it because the leadership at my company just doesn't get the bigger picture. It's caused a couple of friends of mind to leave and seek better opportunities elsewhere. Obviously this is an anecdote, but it is an example of how sexism in the workplace is a real problem.
As to your list:
-Are they? I don't know what your basis is for this claim.
-Do you assume men with children are pedophiles or something? I just assume he's their father unless I see weird behavior.
-Sure, this may be unfair, but its biologically driven and a fairly niche situation. If men are so concerned about not being able to terminate their partner's pregnancy, they should probably be using protection. Problem solved. Plus, if I wanted to include biological unfairness, I would have included pregnancy on my list for women.
-Women have more support programs because society has decided women need them more than men. That's like claiming affirmative action is a benefit to being black or that your power ranger bandaid is a benefit to cutting your arm open. We wouldn't need these programs if the underlying problems didn't exist.
-What is an initiative program?
-Shamed by who? Women who show their feelings in the workplace or to anyone other than their friends or lovers are still shamed, and men who aren't allowed to express feelings to their friends or lovers should find new friends and lovers. -Like being a male nurse? That stigma doesn't really exist anymore, and there are plenty of professions that women struggle to get into compared to men. Again the difference here is that while men may be "shamed" for working as a male nurse, they still have no problem actually getting hired as a male nurse. I'd rather be shamed and have a job than the other way around. + Show Spoiler +-Tradition is a strange bird, I won't argue with you there. But these customs have changed over time and will continue to change as society improves. It's a far more equal landscape on this front than it was even when I was in high school like 10 years ago. Last I checked women were having an easier time getting into male dominated jobs than men were having getting into female dominated jobs. I'll try to do out the source. Which makes a case for female privilege also existing, not for the dismissing of privilege as a concept. You seem to be using privilege to just mean bias. Why not just say bias? Because privilege denotes the benefits of being on the good side of patterns of bias. For one reason. It's also an ambiguous term that lazy SJWs and feminists can use at will, with no objective fact-checking required. I don't feel it's ambiguous in the slightest. It wasn't a concept that I came up with, I had the concept explained to me and at no point did I feel like I needed to tell them that they were using the wrong word for their concept. But there again I don't have an overpowering need to rename other peoples' things and tell them I'm correcting them when I do it. It's pretty rare that I hear someone, such as yourself, use the term privilege in an appropriate manner. Kudos to you for that. I only ever really hear the term used in ambiguous ways, frequently as 'check your privilege' in an effort to silence a voice. So it would seem that our experiences with the word differ. Check your privilege just means "Stop invalidating the experiences of people who experience things in a totally different way to you on the basis of your own experiences. Instead recognise your own privilege in not experiencing things in their way and try to be a bit more sympathetic." Now obviously there is a limit to how crazy someone's claims of their experience can get before you have to say "Listen, what you experience is so obviously nuts that I can't respect it. I'm sorry but men are not oppressing you with their knees". http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/There's also cases where you can say "Obviously I'm not you but I experience that shit literally all the time" like when feminists claim an exclusive right over feeling nervous as hell in a shady area at night. But between the two there is a sweet spot of "Yeah, you're right, I don't experience that and I'm willing to take your word on it that it really sucks". No, the sweet spot is objectivity, not an arbitrary inclusion of bias and / or privilege to counteract bias / privilege. Edit: you may be a bit contradictory here as well. The idea that one experience invalidates the other points to an oppression 'ladder'. Sharing experiences that are different or similar does not invalidate the other.
What I have been saying over and over is that privilege is understanding that your experiences do not invalidate someone else's contradictory experiences. You somehow read the opposite into my post.
|
On May 14 2015 08:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:39 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:18 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:02 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Last I checked women were having an easier time getting into male dominated jobs than men were having getting into female dominated jobs. I'll try to do out the source. Which makes a case for female privilege also existing, not for the dismissing of privilege as a concept. You seem to be using privilege to just mean bias. Why not just say bias? Because privilege denotes the benefits of being on the good side of patterns of bias. For one reason. It's also an ambiguous term that lazy SJWs and feminists can use at will, with no objective fact-checking required. I don't feel it's ambiguous in the slightest. It wasn't a concept that I came up with, I had the concept explained to me and at no point did I feel like I needed to tell them that they were using the wrong word for their concept. But there again I don't have an overpowering need to rename other peoples' things and tell them I'm correcting them when I do it. It's pretty rare that I hear someone, such as yourself, use the term privilege in an appropriate manner. Kudos to you for that. I only ever really hear the term used in ambiguous ways, frequently as 'check your privilege' in an effort to silence a voice. So it would seem that our experiences with the word differ. Check your privilege just means "Stop invalidating the experiences of people who experience things in a totally different way to you on the basis of your own experiences. Instead recognise your own privilege in not experiencing things in their way and try to be a bit more sympathetic." Now obviously there is a limit to how crazy someone's claims of their experience can get before you have to say "Listen, what you experience is so obviously nuts that I can't respect it. I'm sorry but men are not oppressing you with their knees". http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/There's also cases where you can say "Obviously I'm not you but I experience that shit literally all the time" like when feminists claim an exclusive right over feeling nervous as hell in a shady area at night. But between the two there is a sweet spot of "Yeah, you're right, I don't experience that and I'm willing to take your word on it that it really sucks". No, the sweet spot is objectivity, not an arbitrary inclusion of bias and / or privilege to counteract bias / privilege. Edit: you may be a bit contradictory here as well. The idea that one experience invalidates the other points to an oppression 'ladder'. Sharing experiences that are different or similar does not invalidate the other. What I have been saying over and over is that privilege is understanding that your experiences do not invalidate someone else's contradictory experiences. You somehow read the opposite into my post.
lol You can't genuinely be surprised at this point?
|
On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
HR usually is heavily involved with pay setting and hiring / firing decisions.
Usually the payroll department is responsible for... payroll. But do you have statistics to support your assertion? The HR Function: Traditional Vs. Today
Every company – regardless of size, location or purpose – must deal with HR issues in a way that's best suited to its needs and situation. If you own a small business, you probably function as your own HR manager – that is, you personally oversee and conduct each classic HR function for your company: You recruit and hire, you set up compensation and benefits packages, and you write paychecks and keep appropriate records.
The chances are good, too, that you're the person responsible for training and developing the people you hire. And although you may not need to publish a company newsletter to inform staff about what's going on in the company, you probably make a point to keep them in the loop.
Larger companies have entire HR departments and typically employ specialists in areas such as benefits administration or 401(k) retirement plans. But smaller business owners who don't have the resources for such specialization must ensure that they are solid generalists – that is, they possess skills in several areas of the human resources function rather than one particular specialty.
The HR function, in general, has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. Some companies still take a highly structured, largely centralized approach to HR management. The majority of companies today, however, take a far more decentralized approach, with HR practitioners and line managers working cooperatively to develop and implement policies and programs. LinkGood enough? Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Show nested quote +Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding.
Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with.
|
On May 14 2015 08:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:39 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:18 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:02 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Last I checked women were having an easier time getting into male dominated jobs than men were having getting into female dominated jobs. I'll try to do out the source. Which makes a case for female privilege also existing, not for the dismissing of privilege as a concept. You seem to be using privilege to just mean bias. Why not just say bias? Because privilege denotes the benefits of being on the good side of patterns of bias. For one reason. It's also an ambiguous term that lazy SJWs and feminists can use at will, with no objective fact-checking required. I don't feel it's ambiguous in the slightest. It wasn't a concept that I came up with, I had the concept explained to me and at no point did I feel like I needed to tell them that they were using the wrong word for their concept. But there again I don't have an overpowering need to rename other peoples' things and tell them I'm correcting them when I do it. It's pretty rare that I hear someone, such as yourself, use the term privilege in an appropriate manner. Kudos to you for that. I only ever really hear the term used in ambiguous ways, frequently as 'check your privilege' in an effort to silence a voice. So it would seem that our experiences with the word differ. Check your privilege just means "Stop invalidating the experiences of people who experience things in a totally different way to you on the basis of your own experiences. Instead recognise your own privilege in not experiencing things in their way and try to be a bit more sympathetic." Now obviously there is a limit to how crazy someone's claims of their experience can get before you have to say "Listen, what you experience is so obviously nuts that I can't respect it. I'm sorry but men are not oppressing you with their knees". http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/There's also cases where you can say "Obviously I'm not you but I experience that shit literally all the time" like when feminists claim an exclusive right over feeling nervous as hell in a shady area at night. But between the two there is a sweet spot of "Yeah, you're right, I don't experience that and I'm willing to take your word on it that it really sucks". No, the sweet spot is objectivity, not an arbitrary inclusion of bias and / or privilege to counteract bias / privilege. Edit: you may be a bit contradictory here as well. The idea that one experience invalidates the other points to an oppression 'ladder'. Sharing experiences that are different or similar does not invalidate the other. What I have been saying over and over is that privilege is understanding that your experiences do not invalidate someone else's contradictory experiences. You somehow read the opposite into my post.
Because that statement needs to be a two way street. Maybe you could give some examples of it being used properly.
|
On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
But do you have statistics to support your assertion?
The HR Function: Traditional Vs. Today
Every company – regardless of size, location or purpose – must deal with HR issues in a way that's best suited to its needs and situation. If you own a small business, you probably function as your own HR manager – that is, you personally oversee and conduct each classic HR function for your company: You recruit and hire, you set up compensation and benefits packages, and you write paychecks and keep appropriate records.
The chances are good, too, that you're the person responsible for training and developing the people you hire. And although you may not need to publish a company newsletter to inform staff about what's going on in the company, you probably make a point to keep them in the loop.
Larger companies have entire HR departments and typically employ specialists in areas such as benefits administration or 401(k) retirement plans. But smaller business owners who don't have the resources for such specialization must ensure that they are solid generalists – that is, they possess skills in several areas of the human resources function rather than one particular specialty.
The HR function, in general, has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. Some companies still take a highly structured, largely centralized approach to HR management. The majority of companies today, however, take a far more decentralized approach, with HR practitioners and line managers working cooperatively to develop and implement policies and programs. LinkGood enough? Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with.
No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed.
Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly'
|
On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] [quote] LinkGood enough? Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly'
Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited.
Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited.
Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay.
You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented.
Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made"
100% verified by the data I presented.
Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion.
|
On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not even close, it doesn't show the HR is primarily women, that the women in the department set pay, etc.. Hell it basically says the opposite of what you asserted as fact? You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. By all accounts, women now dominate the HR profession, comprising 71 percent of HR managers, according to the Forbes List of the Top 10 Best-Paying Jobs for Women in 2011. Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Show nested quote +Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion.
Cute but what you said was:
The data that economists have isn't super detailed. Yes, there remains a small <5% 'unexplained' wage gap, but the likelihood of that being due to sexism is nill. Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made so the sexism argument would have to rely on women being sexist towards women.
It's also observable that men care more about pay than women, which may make a difference of monetary and non-monetary benefits accruing to the gender that values one more than the other entirely appropriate.
The likelihood of the unexplained wage gap being related to sexism being 'nill' - no source/data cited
The idea that over-representation of women in a field = control/autonomy of decisions, like final approval on employee compensation No source/data cited
The idea that due to over-representation, access to information, and laws, they must be complicit or intentionally being sexist against other women - No source/data cited
Men care more about pay No source/data cited
I could go on but I think you get the point.
All you proved is that women are more frequently classified as HR and that HR departments generally influence payroll. That is a looooooooooooooooooooong way away from providing evidence of your original claim.
so we're clear on terms though... by "dominate' you only mean that they have more than a slightly larger representation than they do in the general population right? Or do you mean something else when you say 'dominate'?
|
On May 14 2015 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] You didn't specify what statistics you wanted. And to answer your question, no, it does not say the opposite of what I asserted. [quote] Source
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also? Again your source kind of craps on your point again... only 43 percent of CHRO positions in Human Resource Executive®'s 2012 Top 100 list of the nation's largest companies are held by women, when you consider that the HR pipeline is predominantly female, the likelihood that women will soon take over the CHRO ranks -- even at those large companies -- is high, some say.
At the same time, there is a growing belief that the 21st-century HR function will naturally attract a more diverse slate of candidates, including more men. Taylor points to the need for more analytics and technical skills, while Sackett cites the shift from administrative to strategic as a key driver in bringing more men into the profession.
"You don't see a lot of male administrative assistants because they are culturally pushed to business-strategy types of roles," says Sackett. "As HR becomes more strategic, it becomes more attractive for men to come into the profession because they feel they can have an impact there."
Jill Smart, chief human resource officer and member of the global management committee at Chicago-based Accenture, disagrees, saying the fact that HR is now considered a key player at the senior table will attract both men and women to the profession. You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. Cute but what you said was: + Show Spoiler +The data that economists have isn't super detailed. Yes, there remains a small <5% 'unexplained' wage gap, but the likelihood of that being due to sexism is nill. Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made so the sexism argument would have to rely on women being sexist towards women.
It's also observable that men care more about pay than women, which may make a difference of monetary and non-monetary benefits accruing to the gender that values one more than the other entirely appropriate. The likelihood of the unexplained wage gap being related to sexism being 'nill' - no source/data citedThe idea that over-representation of women in a field = control/autonomy of decisions, like final approval on employee compensation No source/data citedThe idea that due to over-representation, access to information, and laws, they must be complicit or intentionally being sexist against other women - No source/data cited Men care more about pay No source/data citedI could go on but I think you get the point. All you proved is that women are more frequently classified as HR and that HR departments generally influence payroll. That is a looooooooooooooooooooong way away from providing evidence of your original claim. so we're clear on terms though... by "dominate' you only mean that they have more than a slightly larger representation than they do in the general population right? Or do you mean something else when you say 'dominate'?
Cute, but you asked me You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women.
Now you're shocked - shocked - that I *still* haven't cited sources for all the points... you only just now asked for sources on.
Shame on you.
so we're clear on terms though... by "dominate' you only mean that they have more than a slightly larger representation than they do in the general population right? Or do you mean something else when you say 'dominate'?
Again, shame on you for butchering the facts so badly. Women are >70% of HR managers and <50% of the workforce. They are over represented relative to their population by a large margin.
And you have the audacity to claim that I'm the one that is refusing to see facts? Are you serious? And why the fuck would I go through, citing sources line by line when you reject the proof I've already given you because it does not corroborate your pre-existing world view?
If I have time, I'll take a stab at that, but the prospect of giving information to someone so closed minded just sounds like a waste.
|
On May 14 2015 10:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. How would I verify theveracity of the report they are claiming their statistics from also?
Again your source kind of craps on your point again...
[quote]
You also seem to be missing that even if you're right it doesn't change that women can be and are sexist (or whatever people want to call it) against other women. Read what I posted. Setting pay and benefits is what people in HR do. HR is dominated by women. Check your privilege. You have neither shown that HR "is dominated by women" or that Women in HR are the ones who set/have total control pay and benefits. EDIT: You also didn't show how or why you think women can't be sexist against women. or why it even matters in the discussion about whether privilege is real or whether you or others benefit or suffer from it? Check your data bro. Holy shit. I'm posting data that clearly shows women dominating the HR profession. Moreover, while women can be sexist towards other women, the idea that women are systematically being sexist towards women at a national level is pretty fucking far-fetched. Moreover, pay discrimination is ILLEGAL and women in HR positions have access to the data that could prove pay discrimination in a court of law. Cite data bro. You are posting data that shows women more frequently get classified as HR, or said another way that there are more women there than men. Using that logic I could say the republican party is dominated by people who want to make Christianity the national religion. See how stupid that looks/sounds? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans polled in national survey back establishing Christianity as the “national religion” of the United States. SourceI'm not saying women are systemically sexist against women, although no one would disagree they can be individually. I'm saying you have no data to support your assertion that it's preposterous. If you want to say we don't know fine, but you can't pretend like you know that it's 'far-fetched'. Did you miss Kwark's explanation about how 'illegal' is not synonymous with 'doesn't happen' or 'gets punished'? Don't get mad at me because you claimed something like fact and you didn't have the data you would expect from someone else challenging your understanding. Sorry my data proved me right and you wrong. I understand that makes you feel bad, but it is something you need to learn to live with. No it doesn't? This isn't really debatable? It's just choosing to accept (or not as you seem to be doing) the reality that showing women are more frequently classified as HR workers and that sometimes pay is determined by HR departments isn't what you originally claimed. Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' Pay is mainly an HR department function. It is in the sources I cited. Women dominate HR departments. It is in the sources I cited. Therefore, women who dominate HR departments dominate the HR department function of setting pay. You, on the other hand, provide exactly NOTHING to refute anything I presented. Edit: my original claim: "Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made" 100% verified by the data I presented. Edit 2: Like when you originally claimed privilege is just a blah blah... then changed it to 'well I rarely here it used properly' That was me trying to be conciliatory in an effort the further the discussion. Cute but what you said was: + Show Spoiler +The data that economists have isn't super detailed. Yes, there remains a small <5% 'unexplained' wage gap, but the likelihood of that being due to sexism is nill. Women are over-represented in HR fields were hiring and pay setting decisions are made so the sexism argument would have to rely on women being sexist towards women.
It's also observable that men care more about pay than women, which may make a difference of monetary and non-monetary benefits accruing to the gender that values one more than the other entirely appropriate. The likelihood of the unexplained wage gap being related to sexism being 'nill' - no source/data citedThe idea that over-representation of women in a field = control/autonomy of decisions, like final approval on employee compensation No source/data citedThe idea that due to over-representation, access to information, and laws, they must be complicit or intentionally being sexist against other women - No source/data cited Men care more about pay No source/data citedI could go on but I think you get the point. All you proved is that women are more frequently classified as HR and that HR departments generally influence payroll. That is a looooooooooooooooooooong way away from providing evidence of your original claim. so we're clear on terms though... by "dominate' you only mean that they have more than a slightly larger representation than they do in the general population right? Or do you mean something else when you say 'dominate'? Cute, but you asked me Show nested quote +You're still not showing that women are the ones primarily setting wages for other women. Now you're shocked - shocked - that I *still* haven't cited sources for all the points... you only just now asked for sources on. Shame on you. Show nested quote +so we're clear on terms though... by "dominate' you only mean that they have more than a slightly larger representation than they do in the general population right? Or do you mean something else when you say 'dominate'? Again, shame on you for butchering the facts so badly. Women are >70% of HR managers and <50% of the workforce. They are over represented relative to their population by a large margin. And you have the audacity to claim that I'm the one that is refusing to see facts? Are you serious? And why the fuck would I go through, citing sources line by line when you reject the proof I've already given you because it does not corroborate your pre-existing world view? If I have time, I'll take a stab at that, but the prospect of giving information to someone so closed minded just sounds like a waste.
Well since we seem to have misunderstood what the dispute was even about I think I should explain.
You said several things like they were facts. I eventually asked you to provide sources/data for those statements. (I shouldn't be doing this to you). You know better than most you shouldn't just state things like that as fact without data and shouldn't have even needed to ask, so shame on you!.
My bad I can see how you would get put off by my wording. What I mean is: Are you basing their 'dominance' off of that or by 'dominance' is that specifically what you are referring to? What do you mean when you say 'dominate'?
I let you go on for a while, but I suppose it's in all of our interest to just ask you: How familiar you are with how job offers are determined and negotiated and the difference between payroll functions and the determinations on wages?
Really just how familiar are you with HR in the real world?
|
The likelihood of the unexplained wage gap being related to sexism being 'nill' - no source/data cited
That statement is my opinion. But in addition to what I've already posted I'll cite this article from the St. Louis Fed. It goes over various studies that reach different conclusions as to how low the pay gap goes. I found this bit most interesting: To better match women and men with similar characteristics relevant in a job market, another study used the very detailed National Survey of College Graduates 1993 (NSCG), which provides information not only on the highest degree attained, but also on major field of study and labor force experience.5 To explore racial differences in the gender wage gap, the study compared women of various ethnicities with white men who had similar education, work experience and academic major and who spoke English at home. The study reports a wage gap of 9 percent for white women, 13 percent for black women, 2 percent for Asian women and 0.4 percent for Hispanic women. When the analysis was restricted to unmarried, childless women only, the wage gap shrunk to 7 percent for white women, 9 percent for black women and to virtually zero for Asian and Hispanic women.
Source
Better start citing that Asian / Hispanic 'privilege.' I find it really perplexing that sexism would exist towards White and Black women, but not towards Asian and Hispanic women. But hey, I'm sure you have a lot of data to explain that.
The idea that over-representation of women in a field = control/autonomy of decisions, like final approval on employee compensation No source/data cited
I'm not sure what you aren't getting here. I've cited sources that state the function of those HR jobs includes setting pay. We're talking HR professionals here, not data entry clerks just punching in the numbers they were told to punch in.
The idea that due to over-representation, access to information, and laws, they must be complicit or intentionally being sexist against other women - No source/data cited They're the ones setting pay!!!
Men care more about pay No source/data cited
This one is actually a bit debatable. Men tend to favor extrinsic rewards over intrinsic rewards, with women favoring the reverse. However, both genders rate compensation on roughly the same level. + Show Spoiler +In general, these findings are consistent with work indicating that women value intrinsic rewards compared to men, whereas the latter value extrinsic rewards (Lueptow, 1996), and with work on gender differences in general life values by Beutel and Marini (1995). Whether such preferences are likely to lead women to choose jobs that pay less (and thus contribute in an important way to gender-based wage differentials) is debatable, however, because women are equally as likely as men to attach a high value to jobs that provide a high income. + Show Spoiler +Men's and Women's Definitions of "Good" Jobs:Similarities and Differences by Age and Across Time
Pamela S. Tolbert
And on a related note, there is a gender pay gap at the White House. Female staffers make less than male staffers, but Obama insists that if you control for variables, it's equal pay for equal work source.
Is that enough sources yet? You've given zero.
Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited.
|
Regarding the Male-Women wage gap (or any protected group's wage gap), to the extent that it may exist (it doesn't for unmarried women vs. unmarried men), we have to account for the increased liability risk in hiring that group of people. AKA lawsuits, which the DOJ, or the private employee can (and often do) bring in the event of a firing.
Edit, which no studies seem to adjust for, and I don't even know if they can.
|
On May 14 2015 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +The likelihood of the unexplained wage gap being related to sexism being 'nill' - no source/data cited That statement is my opinion. But in addition to what I've already posted I'll cite this article from the St. Louis Fed. It goes over various studies that reach different conclusions as to how low the pay gap goes. I found this bit most interesting: Show nested quote +To better match women and men with similar characteristics relevant in a job market, another study used the very detailed National Survey of College Graduates 1993 (NSCG), which provides information not only on the highest degree attained, but also on major field of study and labor force experience.5 To explore racial differences in the gender wage gap, the study compared women of various ethnicities with white men who had similar education, work experience and academic major and who spoke English at home. The study reports a wage gap of 9 percent for white women, 13 percent for black women, 2 percent for Asian women and 0.4 percent for Hispanic women. When the analysis was restricted to unmarried, childless women only, the wage gap shrunk to 7 percent for white women, 9 percent for black women and to virtually zero for Asian and Hispanic women. SourceBetter start citing that Asian / Hispanic 'privilege.' I find it really perplexing that sexism would exist towards White and Black women, but not towards Asian and Hispanic women. But hey, I'm sure you have a lot of data to explain that. Show nested quote +The idea that over-representation of women in a field = control/autonomy of decisions, like final approval on employee compensation No source/data cited I'm not sure what you aren't getting here. I've cited sources that state the function of those HR jobs includes setting pay. We're talking HR professionals here, not data entry clerks just punching in the numbers they were told to punch in. Show nested quote +The idea that due to over-representation, access to information, and laws, they must be complicit or intentionally being sexist against other women - No source/data cited They're the ones setting pay!!! This one is actually a bit debatable. Men tend to favor extrinsic rewards over intrinsic rewards, with women favoring the reverse. However, both genders rate compensation on roughly the same level. + Show Spoiler +In general, these findings are consistent with work indicating that women value intrinsic rewards compared to men, whereas the latter value extrinsic rewards (Lueptow, 1996), and with work on gender differences in general life values by Beutel and Marini (1995). Whether such preferences are likely to lead women to choose jobs that pay less (and thus contribute in an important way to gender-based wage differentials) is debatable, however, because women are equally as likely as men to attach a high value to jobs that provide a high income. + Show Spoiler +Men's and Women's Definitions of "Good" Jobs:Similarities and Differences by Age and Across Time
Pamela S. Tolbert However, men are also more likely to express an interest in asking for pay raises source which indicates a preference. Men also have a social pressure to earn money, more-so than women source. And on a related note, there is a gender pay gap at the White House. Female staffers make less than male staffers, but Obama insists that if you control for variables, it's equal pay for equal work source. Is that enough sources yet? You've given zero. Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited.
Best I can tell they are using 'dominate' to describe that there are a lot of women that work in HR and they are the majority of VP's but not Presidents of HR. Is that what you are reading/meaning?
As for the HR in real life your reference to data and sources indicates not much. I don't know how many jobs you've had but I am not familiar with any where HR is the one negotiating pay. Even where they are the most autonomous and have the most authority they only have strong influence and veto power, which they share with several people usually, although the ultimate veto/approval within a company is never exclusively in their hands (provided HR and CEO/owner aren't the same person of course lol).
If you we agree on our reading of dominate and we can reach similar ground on what HR departments do in real life I think my contentions may become more clear to you.
|
I actually think the pay gap is a relic of older generations and distorted somewhat by male-dominated executive positions. I would like to see some data on the pay-gap in 21-30 year olds with a college degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
