|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
It's much easier to pull yourself up from your bootstraps if you aren't constantly being pulled over and assessed fines you can't afford, for example.
don't need to make this argument, just look at the history of blacks and ask yourself would you be where you are if your parents and grandparents went through the same experiences. many of the resources people take for granted are absent for a black person from the hood. having in view the historical and socioeconomic background is critical to understanding why an understanding of socioeconomic mechanism makes race more relevant, not less.
|
On May 15 2015 00:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +It's much easier to pull yourself up from your bootstraps if you aren't constantly being pulled over and assessed fines you can't afford, for example. don't need to make this argument, just look at the history of blacks and ask yourself would you be where you are if your parents and grandparents went through the same experiences. many of the resources people take for granted are absent for a black person from the hood. having in view the historical and socioeconomic background is critical to understanding why an understanding of socioeconomic mechanism makes race more relevant, not less.
I chose that example because it seemed like the only real disparate impact that Ghostcom was willing to acknowledge was that black people are more likely to be stopped by police, but yours is a good one as well.
Along those lines, this is a really interesting study that was conducted over 25 years:
As one of the first studies to closely examine the outcomes of inner-city whites in addition to African Americans, data from the BSSYP shows that by adulthood, white men of lower status family background, despite attaining less education on average, were more likely to be employed than any other group in part due to family connections and long-standing racial biases in Baltimore’s industrial economy.
Source
It concludes among other things that white people who have run-ins with the prison system have an easier time getting second chances because they are more likely to have relatives in trade fields that have historically excluded black people.
|
On May 15 2015 00:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 14:11 zlefin wrote:
Several people have also noted that you yourself GH, tend to engage quite poorly. So it's not surprising someone chooses to disengage with you.
I wish people would stop making me be a voice of reason, it's much more fun to be ranting at foolishness than trying to be reasonable about it and calm things down civilly. I came to this forum really hot originally IIRC, then I got warned or whatever a few times and toned it down a bit, then a few particular posters drove me nuts. I'm generally pretty amiable and easy to converse with when it comes to people who haven't said some obnoxiously ignorant stuff or worn my patience long ago. Sometimes I do let my tone carry onto replies towards people who are merely agreeing with something someone who I clearly disagree with (and is one of those who has already worn out my patience) and that's not really fair to them, so to them I apologize (that probably includes you at some point). But come on, you've had a job before right? Did you negotiate your pay with HR? Normally I might agree with you, hell had he left earlier I might even agree with you, (I was mimicking his technique and it's infuriating on the other side [though now I understand better the enjoyment he may get from it]) but leaving without addressing a very simple aspect at the core of his original point is at best lazy and/or more likely the explanation I provided. Think of how easy it would be to make me look like an ass by just describing the process in the way he seems to think it works and see if that matches reality. To me, it feels like he's trying to make his points, he's doing research, and trying to be quite thorough. You don't seem to be adding links, or bringing much to the discussion other than trying to tear him down endlessly. What information and insights are you adding? And focusing too much on the things he says rather than on the actual underlying issues. That's just my personal impression of course.
Have you not had a job either? I only ask because I feel like that's the only way one can think HR and pay determinations generally work how they would need to for Jonny's original assertion to make any sense?
Of course it would help if he didn't keep avoiding the questions of what he and his source meant by 'dominate', and how he thinks pay negotiations and such work and what role HR generally plays.
If you think his point makes any sense perhaps you can describe how you think it works and then maybe it will make sense (but I do doubt it).
|
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond.
|
On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond.
The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does.
If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much.
If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not.
I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta.
Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness.
EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but...
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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid.
|
On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid.
I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect.
Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you.
|
GH -> the tone is also set by a VERY longstanding pattern of poor behavior and aggression from you; and the number of times you've been wrongheaded.
You two should just not talk to each other, at all. You two just fight constantly, so it'd really be best if you just never responded to each other imho.
|
On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you.
Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner?
You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really.
But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'?
On May 15 2015 02:22 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the tone is also set by a VERY longstanding pattern of poor behavior and aggression from you; and the number of times you've been wrongheaded.
You two should just not talk to each other, at all. You two just fight constantly, so it'd really be best if you just never responded to each other imho.
You may have missed it but I tried. I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I eventually also caved and responded to his incessantly ignorant remarks. When I did, I tried again to agree not to respond to each other and he refused.
Before this particular discussion I tried again. This is what I mean by not really knowing what you are talking about. If you want to admonish someone for not 'walking away' try the person who has refused to do it several times first not the one who requested several times now that we not interact.
|
On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'?
I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read.
Those were all statements of empirical fact 
I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it.
I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know?
|
On May 15 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'? I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read. Those were all statements of empirical fact Show nested quote +I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know?
No, no you didn't... You said:
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.
and...
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.
and...
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.
and...
They're the ones setting pay!!!
and...
Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited.
So maybe at some point you said you overreached, and I might have missed it, but you said all that shit first.
Also as you can see from your 'explanation' of 'dominate' I needed more clarification, so I gave you my assessment of what I thought the article meant by 'dominate' you neither agreed or disagreed, so you have in fact not answered that question. Despite being asked repeatedly to clarify.
You also still haven't just answered the obnoxiously simple and plainly relevant question of how you think it usually works. Which, best as I can tell, is the clear root of this disagreement in the first place.
|
are you ronald reagan, jonny?
|
On May 15 2015 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'? I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read. Those were all statements of empirical fact I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know? No, no you didn't... You said: 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. and... 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. and... 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. and... and... Show nested quote +Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited. So maybe at some point you said you overreached, and I might have missed it, but you said all that shit first. Also as you can see from your 'explanation' of 'dominate' I needed more clarification, so I gave you my assessment of what I thought the article meant by 'dominate' you neither agreed or disagreed, so you have in fact not answered that question. Despite being asked repeatedly to clarify. You also still haven't just answered the obnoxiously simple and plainly relevant question of how you think it usually works. Which, best as I can tell, is the clear root of this disagreement in the first place.
It wasn't shit. It was factually accurate.
Keep howling over one point though, it's cute.
|
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on Thursday offered yet another answer on the Iraq war saying that, given what he knows now, he would not have authorized an invasion of Iraq.
Those comments strongly contrast ones he made on Monday to Fox's Megyn Kelly when he said he would have authorized an invasion. A day later, he backtracked, saying misheard the question and did not know what he would have done. On Wednesday, Bush said he refused to answer as it would be a disservice to American troops.
But at an event in Tempe, Arizona, on Thursday, Bush gave yet another answer.
"I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq," Bush said.
Bush's initial comments sparked criticism from likely and declared 2016 candidates. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who's strongly hinted at a White House bid, said he would not have gone into Iraq given what we know today. Declared candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said "of course not" when asked the question.
Source
|
On May 15 2015 03:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'? I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read. Those were all statements of empirical fact I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know? No, no you didn't... You said: 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. and... 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. and... 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. and... They're the ones setting pay!!! and... Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited. So maybe at some point you said you overreached, and I might have missed it, but you said all that shit first. Also as you can see from your 'explanation' of 'dominate' I needed more clarification, so I gave you my assessment of what I thought the article meant by 'dominate' you neither agreed or disagreed, so you have in fact not answered that question. Despite being asked repeatedly to clarify. You also still haven't just answered the obnoxiously simple and plainly relevant question of how you think it usually works. Which, best as I can tell, is the clear root of this disagreement in the first place. It wasn't shit. It was factually accurate. Keep howling over one point though, it's cute.
No it is obviously and plainly shit.
It requires a total obliviousness to how this stuff actually works in the real world to even remotely entertain your assertion. As evidenced by your responses.
And you are already walking back your admission that you overreached in the first place... Com'on Man!
|
On May 15 2015 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 03:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'? I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read. Those were all statements of empirical fact I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know? No, no you didn't... You said: 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. and... 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. and... 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:
[quote]
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. and... They're the ones setting pay!!! and... Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited. So maybe at some point you said you overreached, and I might have missed it, but you said all that shit first. Also as you can see from your 'explanation' of 'dominate' I needed more clarification, so I gave you my assessment of what I thought the article meant by 'dominate' you neither agreed or disagreed, so you have in fact not answered that question. Despite being asked repeatedly to clarify. You also still haven't just answered the obnoxiously simple and plainly relevant question of how you think it usually works. Which, best as I can tell, is the clear root of this disagreement in the first place. It wasn't shit. It was factually accurate. Keep howling over one point though, it's cute. No it is obviously and plainly shit. It requires a total obliviousness to how this stuff actually works in the real world to even remotely entertain your assertion. As evidenced by your responses.
If it's shit, prove it. Should be easy, even for a monkey :3
And you are already walking back your admission that you overreached in the first place... Com'on Man!
I'm not! I overreached, but it's still factual. HR plays a role in pay setting. Saying that they 'set pay' as if they're the only ones tasked with pay decisions goes too far, but that's not what I intended.
|
On May 15 2015 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If it's shit, prove it. Should be easy, even for a monkey :3
Wow o_O.
|
On May 15 2015 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 03:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'? I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read. Those were all statements of empirical fact I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know? No, no you didn't... You said: 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. and... 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. and... 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:
[quote]
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. and... They're the ones setting pay!!! and... Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited. So maybe at some point you said you overreached, and I might have missed it, but you said all that shit first. Also as you can see from your 'explanation' of 'dominate' I needed more clarification, so I gave you my assessment of what I thought the article meant by 'dominate' you neither agreed or disagreed, so you have in fact not answered that question. Despite being asked repeatedly to clarify. You also still haven't just answered the obnoxiously simple and plainly relevant question of how you think it usually works. Which, best as I can tell, is the clear root of this disagreement in the first place. It wasn't shit. It was factually accurate. Keep howling over one point though, it's cute. No it is obviously and plainly shit. It requires a total obliviousness to how this stuff actually works in the real world to even remotely entertain your assertion. As evidenced by your responses. If it's shit, prove it. Should be easy, even for a monkey :3
lol 2 clever. Way to call me a monkey without calling me a monkey 2 points to Slytherin.
Anyway, you seem to be missing the point altogether. I don't need to prove you are wrong to prove that you are not proving you are right.
I'm not! I overreached, but it's still factual. HR plays a role in pay setting. Saying that they 'set pay' as if they're the only ones tasked with pay decisions goes too far, but that's not what I intended.
The posts are right there. You said "They're the ones setting pay!!!" you can't honestly expect me to accept that it's simply 'not what [you] intended' that's almost as ridiculous as what you asserted in the first place. That was after I even tried to help you by saying they 'influenced pay', so saying that's not what you intended just wreaks of bullshit.
Take a deep breath and just type "I shouldn't have said what I said, I didn't know what I was talking about" **then click post** and we can be done. But what you're doing now is just ridiculous. Trying to rewrite history when the posts are right in front of you just looks pathetic.
|
More than 40% of U.S. honeybee colonies died in a 12-month period ending in April, extending a troubling trend that has scientists scrambling for a solution and professional beekeepers struggling to stay in business.
The Agriculture Department said in its annual honeybee survey released Wednesday that beekeepers are starting to lose large numbers of bees during both the summer and winter—presenting scientists with a new wrinkle since die-offs had generally occurred during the cold winter months.
“I think the situation is changing,” said Dennis vanEngelsdorp, an expert on honeybees at the University of Maryland. “It remains bad but I don’t know if we can assume the same thing is happening year to year.”
For the first time since the survey began five years ago, the summer loss rates exceeded the winter loss rates, suggesting bees are becoming vulnerable during a time of the year they were thought to be healthy and robust.
Source
|
On May 15 2015 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 03:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 01:45 zlefin wrote:
Our discussion is a meta one, not about the underlying topic that brought it up, but about civility and the nature of the discussion process itself. I am not interested in arguing with you about the underlying topic. If you have something to say on our meta discussion, then I will respond. + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'? I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read. Those were all statements of empirical fact I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know? No, no you didn't... You said: 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. and... 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:
[quote]
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. and... 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:
[quote]
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. and... They're the ones setting pay!!! and... Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited. So maybe at some point you said you overreached, and I might have missed it, but you said all that shit first. Also as you can see from your 'explanation' of 'dominate' I needed more clarification, so I gave you my assessment of what I thought the article meant by 'dominate' you neither agreed or disagreed, so you have in fact not answered that question. Despite being asked repeatedly to clarify. You also still haven't just answered the obnoxiously simple and plainly relevant question of how you think it usually works. Which, best as I can tell, is the clear root of this disagreement in the first place. It wasn't shit. It was factually accurate. Keep howling over one point though, it's cute. No it is obviously and plainly shit. It requires a total obliviousness to how this stuff actually works in the real world to even remotely entertain your assertion. As evidenced by your responses. If it's shit, prove it. Should be easy, even for a monkey :3 lol 2 clever. Way to call me a monkey without calling me a monkey 2 points to Slytherin. Anyway, you seem to be missing the point altogether. I don't need to prove you are wrong to prove that you are not proving you are right. Show nested quote +I'm not! I overreached, but it's still factual. HR plays a role in pay setting. Saying that they 'set pay' as if they're the only ones tasked with pay decisions goes too far, but that's not what I intended. The posts are right there. You said "They're the ones setting pay!!!" you can't honestly expect me to accept that it's simply 'not what [you] intended' that's almost as ridiculous as what you asserted in the first place. That was after I even tried to help you by saying they 'influenced pay', so saying that's not what you intended just wreaks of bullshit. Take a deep breath and just type "I shouldn't have said what I said, I didn't know what I was talking about" and we can be done. But what you're doing now is just ridiculous. Trying to rewrite history when the posts are right in front of you just looks pathetic.
My first comment on it: HR usually is heavily involved with pay setting and hiring / firing decisions.
|
On May 15 2015 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 03:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2015 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2015 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +The tone was set by the absurdity of the original premise, and a long standing pattern of behavior from jonny. If you are starting from the beginning of just that topic you are missing the vast majority of why the discussion with jonny looks like it does. If you want to discuss civility among posters we'd need to look at what's happened historically. Simply looking at the last 10-20 posts of someone doesn't say much. If we did that I could say I don't talk about race, ya know because I haven't for several pages. But that would be dishonest about what people will read into my posts regardless of whether I mention race or not. I fear you just aren't familiar enough with the nuance surrounding some of the 'relationships' here to really be accurately assessing the meta. Could I be more polite with Jonny sure, but as Kwark demonstrated it doesn't change his wrongheadedness. EDIT: I know you don't want to discuss the underlying premise but... 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.
That is straight numbskull shit right there. Anyone who has had jobs knows this is stupid right away. Not like innocent mistake stupid, like forgetting your phone on top of your car, we're talking "earth is flat" in the 20th century stupid. I overreached with that point, but it wasn't strictly incorrect. Also, if you keep up with the insults I'm going to shoot some back at you. Well there's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Maybe if you started with that instead of pretending your sources proved you were right we could of gotten somewhere sooner? You insult me practically every long discussion we have, I don't know why this one would be different? You've called me a bigot, a white hater, kid, insulted my education, etc... I don't think you have anything left really. But if you want to try to defend your premise we still need you to confirm what you mean by 'dominate'? I said I overreached a long time ago and explained 'dominate' as well. Unfortunately, you're too angry to read. Those were all statements of empirical fact I thought I agreed with Jonny that we would ignore each other, he couldn't do it. I never agreed to that. You also post bait crap like 'Why Reagan is a retard' and 'conservatives will let you die in the street' youtube clips and expect me to not respond. How about I post a video titled 'why blacks are inferior' and then politely ask you to not respond... for reasons of civility, you know? No, no you didn't... You said: 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. and... 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:
[quote]
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. and... 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:[quote] 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? [quote] 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. and... They're the ones setting pay!!! and... Edit: I'm using the word 'dominate' in the same context as the article I cited. So maybe at some point you said you overreached, and I might have missed it, but you said all that shit first. Also as you can see from your 'explanation' of 'dominate' I needed more clarification, so I gave you my assessment of what I thought the article meant by 'dominate' you neither agreed or disagreed, so you have in fact not answered that question. Despite being asked repeatedly to clarify. You also still haven't just answered the obnoxiously simple and plainly relevant question of how you think it usually works. Which, best as I can tell, is the clear root of this disagreement in the first place. It wasn't shit. It was factually accurate. Keep howling over one point though, it's cute. No it is obviously and plainly shit. It requires a total obliviousness to how this stuff actually works in the real world to even remotely entertain your assertion. As evidenced by your responses. If it's shit, prove it. Should be easy, even for a monkey :3 lol 2 clever. Way to call me a monkey without calling me a monkey 2 points to Slytherin. Anyway, you seem to be missing the point altogether. I don't need to prove you are wrong to prove that you are not proving you are right. I'm not! I overreached, but it's still factual. HR plays a role in pay setting. Saying that they 'set pay' as if they're the only ones tasked with pay decisions goes too far, but that's not what I intended. The posts are right there. You said "They're the ones setting pay!!!" you can't honestly expect me to accept that it's simply 'not what [you] intended' that's almost as ridiculous as what you asserted in the first place. That was after I even tried to help you by saying they 'influenced pay', so saying that's not what you intended just wreaks of bullshit. Take a deep breath and just type "I shouldn't have said what I said, I didn't know what I was talking about" and we can be done. But what you're doing now is just ridiculous. Trying to rewrite history when the posts are right in front of you just looks pathetic. My first comment on it: Show nested quote +HR usually is heavily involved with pay setting and hiring / firing decisions.
What do you mean 'heavily involved' and why would you go on to say 'they set pay' multiple times if what you meant was whatever you meant by 'heavily involved'?
Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and just describe the role you think HR plays in setting pay? Clearly that is at the root of this disagreement.
I should add that was not your first comment on it either. It's really tough to discuss something with someone who can't even agree on reality.
On May 14 2015 06:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 06:44 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 14 2015 05:32 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 05:13 ZasZ. wrote:On May 14 2015 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 04:53 ZasZ. wrote:On May 14 2015 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 14 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On May 14 2015 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:[quote] 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. Come on man, you know better than that. I know that, as a white straight male, my path through life is easier than it would be if I were not white, not straight, and not male. That's all privilege is. You just don't want to hear the actual message because you don't like the people spouting it. Come on man, you should know better than that. Try school. It's both popular and fun. You don't know anything about me. But if you honestly believe that being a straight white male isn't the easiest combination of those three attributes in our day and age, I can see why people struggle to communicate with you in this thread. Being female is arguably more of a privilege than being male. But as I said, 'privilege' is a nebulous term SJWs use to communicate general feelings about a topic. It shouldn't be used in a serious discussion, though, since it relies heavily on anecdotes, suppositions, assumptions and cherry picked data. If you want to be taken seriously, stick to making strong arguments based on data and be prepared to defend that data to criticism, because criticism is good. It makes good ideas and arguments stronger, not weaker, and only bad ideas need fear criticism. Ok, then care to tell me how being female is arguably more of a privilege than being male? I'm drawing blanks except for the fact that men are frequently poorly treated in divorce/custody proceedings. But that hardly makes up for the wage gap, slut shaming, etc. and occurs on a much smaller scale. 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. 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.
That was your first comment and it is just as stupid as I described. Seriously knock it off with rewriting very recent history. People have short memories but your posts are right there for me to remind people you're just being misleading at best if not just outright lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
