ObjectivityIncarnate

Removed by mod

That is one horrendous logo, lol

It works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.

True equality, lol.

There was an attempt

women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc.

It’s simply the difference that’s being noticed, and no one’s really at fault for that, on either side. Any woman who never wears makeup is also never going to get the same ‘are you sick?’ kind of reactions on any given day she doesn’t wear makeup to work.

Same, I’m really grateful she has no interest/desire to wear makeup. It was also nice to know what her face looked like from day 1, which is what this app is meant to facilitate.

The more I think about it, the stranger the notion of ‘gatekeeping her real face’ behind a full-on relationship sounds to me, lol.

P.S. lol, I just remembered reading an old ‘hack’ for this years and years ago: make a water park your first outing together.

Your opportunities in life are absolutely dependent on your wealth. Those hoarding wealth are stealing opportunity from everyone.

What if the wealth you possess was created by you? Wealth isn’t zero sum, it’s created all the time (and at a rate literally not achievable simply by underpaying employees, to pre-refute the expected response). The implied premise of ‘because they have it, we don’t have it’ just doesn’t hold any water.

Also, it doesn’t really make sense to call it ‘hoarding’ when it’s largely/all invested in businesses that run within the economy. To hoard something is to keep it isolated–investments in publicly-traded companies can never truly fairly be called “hoarding”. You could only fairly call the funds kept in back accounts etc. unspent ‘hoarded’.

$500 says you’ve never replied to a post where a woman implies her ex-husband was a bad person with “I hate my ex husband, haha, men bad”

1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.

As for your claim that “nobody” steals for their baby

Congrats on contradicting the absolute literal interpretation of what was obviously hyperbole, I guess.

imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.

That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.

You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.

No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.

And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?

This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.

Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.

The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.

Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.

Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol

This would be a scandal. It would be a news story. Please, give a link to a single time this has ever happened, because of all the things that never happened, this happened the least.

I’ll do you two better. Only took 15 seconds of Googling, after all:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-formula-targeted-organized-retail-theft-rings/story?id=13293485 https://www.wate.com/news/knox-county-news/three-accused-of-stealing-12000-worth-of-baby-formula-from-across-knox-county/ https://www.newsflare.com/video/635785/thieves-steal-7k-of-baby-formula-from-supermarket-in-just-20-minutes

Time to find out if you’ll admit you’re wrong, or if the smug ignorance continues.

no, it isn’t

“When the BLS reports that women working full-time in 2020 earned 82.3% of what men earned working full-time, that is very much different from saying that women earned 82.3% of what men earned for doing exactly the same work while working the exact same number of hours in the same occupation, with exactly the same educational background and exactly the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and with exactly the same marital and family (e.g., number of children) status…once we start controlling individually for the many relevant factors that affect earnings, e.g., hours worked, age, marital status, and having children, most of the raw earnings differential disappears.”

Done with your ignorant “nuh uh” garbage. Go ahead and cling to your misogyny boogeyman, you’re clearly more interested in maintaining your own assumptions and biases, than the truth. This nonsense is literally equivalent to the creationist “god of the gaps” fallacious argument, where any empty spot in the evolutionary record is assumed by the creationist to be ‘God did it, right there’. Then, whenever we find a transitional fossil Z between X and Y, suddenly God’s role is no longer between X and Y, but between X and Z, and Z and Y, ad infinitum.

The bottom line is that there is literally zero evidence that any statistically-significant portion of the gap between the sexes’ average early earnings IS caused by sexism. This is just something people like you assume, because you’re too simple-minded to consider that a difference in outcome between two demographics could be caused by anything but bigotry toward one of them. And it’s another level of simple-mindedness to continue to cling to that assumption even after you’ve been made aware of well over a dozen factors that account for various chunks of the gap, making it clear that ‘turns out there can in fact be other reasons for this disparity to exist’. The misogyny ‘God’ in that ever-shrinking gap–the straw you cling to constantly shortening. Ideologue narrative-clinging is pitiable.

I’m not going to entertain your “prove it’s not” nonsense, that’s not how it works. Enjoy your delusional boogeyman hunt, I guess.

P.S. Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality? Like Saudi Arabia, where women only recently became legally allowed to drive, and Egypt, which has the second highest rate of sexual harassment on Earth. Whoops, another massive wrench in your delusional assumption, how about that?

no there’s still a gap per-hour for the same work

The remaining gap is smaller than the margin of error, once you account for every known factor. For example, a man and woman might both have the same job title at the same company, but if the man was working there for a longer period of time, or opts to work more overtime, etc. etc., then naturally he’s going to get paid more “for the same work”. But about that phrase:

You should understand that, primarily because it’d be absurdly impractical otherwise (no one is going to be examining the individual daily acts of all these people at their jobs), whenever research in this area talks about “same work”, they always mean the same job title. So already, that’s leaving a lot on the table, of which I gave two examples above (experience and amount of hours/overtime worked).

Fields dominated by men happen to pay more? Why?

You have cause and effect backwards. The fields pay more first, then men are shown to gravitate more toward them. This is partly because men tend to be more likely to prioritize raw earning potential over everything else, versus women, who are more likely to prioritize other things, such as time flexibility/convenience (check out the man/woman ratio of graveyard shift jobs for an eye-opener), commute time, etc. And part of the reason for that is the social pressure for men to be ‘the provider’, which may have lessened in recent decades, but is definitely still a factor to a degree.

Another big factor is that, as men are more likely to prefer ‘working with things’, and women are more likely to prefer ‘working with people’, the inescapable fact that ‘things’ scale up to a degree of magnitude that ‘people’ never can, means that the industries that men already tend to favor (STEM), will also be the ones that can scale up and pay more as a result of that. An engineer could be able to manage 1 system now, but be able to manage 10 in the future with technological advances, but even the best nurse on the planet is never going to be able to care for orders of magnitude more people than they can presently.

Why are men socially in a position where they can choose these higher risk occupations?

This is a loaded question. Men aren’t any more “socially in a position” to do so than women. Women are completely free to choose these occupations. But by and large, they simply don’t. The difference in priority I described above is why. Left to make a free choice, men are simply more likely to risk their safety and lives for a bigger paycheck, than women are.

Construction, oil field workers, logging all seem to have a pretty bad reputation for hostile work environments for women, no?

Okay, really now, let’s not pretend there are these throngs of women clamoring to be ‘let in’ to the roofing industry, or the oil fields, and only aren’t working in those fields because of the misogyny of the existing workforce. Please, let’s return to reality here.

Why are men more often in positions where this is possible? What gender difference could there possibly be that could make this the case? What sexual dimorphism has led to this difference? What social expectations have we placed upon women that would lead to this? Personally I haven’t a clue.

Again, it’s choice, not a difference in opportunity. I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on that. Left to their own devices, and given full freedom to choose their professional paths, men and women, by and large, do NOT make the same decisions. In fact, the data has shown that the more egalitarian a society is re sex equality, the more pronounced those differences become (for example, the male skew in engineering tilts harder toward male, and the female skew in nursing tilts harder toward female). This is the opposite of what those who did this research expected to discover, such that it’s literally called the “gender equality paradox”.

Why would higher risks lead to a higher median salary?

Because if you have two jobs that have equivalent pay and prerequisites, but one is more dangerous than the other, no one will choose it over the safer option, obviously. You have to pay more for dangerous jobs, or no one will do them, unless they literally have no other choice.

9 . Why?

This is the ‘working with things’ vs. ‘working with people’ general preference difference between men and women, in action.

Why are men more able to relocate than women?

Once more, you’re twisting things. Point 17 doesn’t say men are more ABLE, it says they’re more WILLING. Difference.

No one shoplifts formula to feed their own baby, they steal it to literally scalp it to those who actually do need it, at a fat markup, after conveniently draining the store’s supply so they’re the only source.

They’re not Robin Hoods sticking it to the Big Bad Corporation. They’re profiteering scumbags.

Like maybe some of these bullet points aren’t so much counter arguments as _exactly the kind of thing we should be targeting

What are you targeting, exactly? The ability of women to choose? Because that’s the only way you’re going to equalize the kind of things you mentioned right before that quote–by giving them as little choice in the matter as men have.

If you compare men to childless, never-married women, the gap essentially vanishes. Women who choose to be less ‘all in’ professionally bring the female average down. You can’t fault employers for favoring and paying more to workers who have more continuous experience etc.

Why is it culturally acceptable that women should do all a disproportionate amount of household chores?

There are no ‘culture police’ coming around to enforce this. This is decided individually within each relationship. And women are more than capable of leaving men who are not willing to do whatever share of those tasks (up to and including 100%) they want their partner to be doing.

Why is teaching so low paid now?

I suspect it’s similar to the reason vets are very underpaid compared to other medical professions: being passionate about helping kids/animals opens one up to be easier to take advantage of, re wages. In other words, you love animals so you’re willing to be paid less than you might deserve, in order to do the job you want to do.

That said, plenty of teachers are paid quite well, there are a lot of factors that determine whether a given teacher gets what we’d generally consider a ‘good’ wage.

Why is software engineering more highly paid.

Because it scales much more, especially as technology advances. Even the best nurse on Earth, for example, can only care for so many human beings in one day. But a piece of good software can serve millions, maybe billions of people. And a millions of people paying you one cent each will enrich you much more than 10 people paying that ‘ultimate nurse’ a large sum each.

It’s a fact of the matter that STEM scales up in ways that fields like teaching and nursing simply can’t. That’s not misogyny, that’s just reality. Another fact of the matter is that the skew toward men in engineering, for example, and the skew toward women in nursing, as an opposite example, are HIGHEST in the countries with the best gender equality laws/culture. Fact is, men and women tend to choose different careers in aggregate, when given the agency to choose. Read up on the Nordic Gender Equality Paradox to learn more.

Too much is being blamed on some sinister big plot by The Men to keep The Women down. There is no such barrier in the Western world in 2024.