red-pillgrimage - Tumblr blog

red-pillgrimage · 8 years

Text

Debunking bullshit, partie trois.

This is part of the on-going critique of a particular anti-feminist/MRA wall-of-test/links that has been going around and needs some particular attention.

Rape Culture

Statistics doesn’t back up Rape culture(1) RAINN debunks Rape culture(2) “97% of rapists never see a day in jail” is a myth (3) Lesbian on Lesbian Rape (4) Inflation of anti-human trafficking statistics (5) Men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names published and their lives ruined even if they are not convicted or charged - their accuser is protected and is likely to face no punishment, or a light one. (6) Under a recent federal directive, men are convicted of rape in university campuses if the investigating board finds that the chances they committed the rape are at 50.00001% or greater. (7) The DOE policy in practice: Caleb Warner was accused of rape and expelled from the University of North Dakota, then his accuser was charged with filing a false report. He remains expelled as of June 2011 (8) Woman rapes boy, woman becomes pregnant, boy must paid child support. 40% of rapists are female (8) 1 (9) Definition of rape, erases victims of rape who are forced to penetrate, generally men who are forced to have sex with women. (10) Men are raped in the military (11) Men Outnumber Women Among American Rape Victims (12) Male statutory rape victims forced to pay child support (13) 59% of the rapists had been heterosexually molested. (14) Female Pedophiles Cause Children More Harm, According to Research by University of Bergen, Norway (15) males and females carried out sexual violence at strikingly similar rates after the age of 18 (16) Female-on-male sexual assault is under reported (17)

1. Yikes, once again OP doesn’t bother to do their homework and read the sources and their sources. Or maybe OP doesn’t care to understand what is being said and by who. In this U.S.News newspaper article, we’re presented with another story of a reportedly falsely accused man on a U.S. campus. This newspaper would like us to believe that sexual assault rates aren’t a big deal because according to their non-expert opinion, stats are just inflated by loose language but only in the studies which support their own views. The 1 in 5 women on campuses who are raped (or sexually assaulted, but the article doesn’t mention this distinction from the actual study) is presented as some feminist-driven propaganda because

Surveyors employed such a broad definition that "'forced kissing" and even "attempted forced kissing" qualified as sexual assault.

While this already sounds like sexual assault the journalist didn’t bother to read their “counter” study, which if you bother to also read, will give a very similar definition of sexual assault

Sexual assault is defined across a wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between a victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats.

So no, sorry to break it to you, it’s not a definition problem between stated rates of sexual assault. And lets make it clear for those people in the back, yes if someone forces themselves on you to kiss you it is sexual assault.

If not definitions, is it maybe who and how they were asked?

The study which examined 2 specific universities in the U.S. found that 20% of women would experience sexual assault or rape during their senior undergraduate academic year based on a ~2500 student sample. When the data is broken down, it’s 1 in 7 women experienced unwanted penetration, rape, in these two universities.

The “second”/”counter” study to “disprove” the former claim states that there’s so few cases of sexual assault or rape of men that it can’t be validly measured through their data and that’s why it’s called “female victims of...” So I mean, if this is the kind of back-bone you want for your MRA/anti-feminist ideology about men being victims as well, I guess I can roll with it. But I guess these “facts” won’t match the “facts” we see later about the victimization of men.

So what us readers should know, because this man was found guilty and later found not guilty, that rape culture is not a thing. Because this man was falsely accused of a sexual crime, expressions like “they got raped” aren’t casual gamer-speaker. Because this man was falsely accused, “hatefuck” isn’t an expression used by anyone. Because this man was falsely accused, men are sexually assaulted or raped so rarely that it doesn’t even deserve particular mention or interest in national surveys. I’m sure glad countries who don’t believe in rape culture don’t promote rape or let rapists walk among them.

2. I mean, come on, OP. are you even trying

One out of every six women and one out of every 33 men are victims of sexual assault – 20 million Americans in all. Those of college age are more likely to be victimized than any other age group.

And alarmingly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) estimates that just 12% of college victims report their assault to law enforcement officials.ii This is far below the rate of the general population, where about 40% of all sexual attacks are reported to police, according to DOJ.

Rape is all too often a crime without consequences. In America, out of every 100 rapes, only 40 are reported to police, and only three rapists will ever spend a day behind bars.

When these crimes aren’t reported, ... serial criminals are left unpunished and free to strike again. And the message this sends to the broader community and future offenders? You can rape with impunity; that’s just what happens in college.

The FBI, for purposes of its Uniform Crime Reports, has a hierarchy of crimes — a ranking of violent crimes in order of seriousness. Murder, of course, ranks first. Second is rape. It would never occur to anyone to leave the adjudication of a murder in the hands of a school’s internal judicial process. Why, then, is it not only common, but expected, for them to do so when it comes to sexual assault? We need to get to a point where it seems just as inappropriate to treat rape so lightly.

I don’t exactly see where “rape culture” is “debunked” by these folks. Do you?

3. this is literally a 20 years old crime trend analysis. this was published in 1997. the crime trends it measures are from 1980s-1995. this is so irrelevant it’s absurd.

4. So this is an article about woman-woman sexual assaults/rape... Which is meant to accomplish what? I really don’t know, but here’s some nice stuff out of it

White and SFWAR take the approach that when a person is raped “your power has been taken away from you. We like to provide people with a lot of different options. There are no ‘shoulds’ in response to being raped. Every woman needs to know that. First off everybody needs to choose their own healing path.” SFWAR tries to present specific and individuated plans to help rape victims find that healing path–including victims of rape by women. White explains that these can include “filing a police report, seeking medical attention, looking for community-based responses to get the healing that you need and healing from a community as well.”

White explained that women who experience female/female sexual assault are less likely to seek help than women who are raped by men and have other fears associated with dealing with police and the court system as well as their own LGBT communities.

According to the SFRCC, the primary barriers to confronting same-sex sexual assault are disbelief and denial, with a giant dose of homophobia—external and internalized—thrown into the mix.

SFRCC notes that, “Many people do not want to believe or are unaware that same-sex rape happens. If it is acknowledged, often it is thought to be ‘not as bad’ as male-female rape.” Much like Whoopi Goldberg’s declaration that Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old was not “rape-rape.”

It really sucks that people who have been victimized are forced to deal with social gender stereotypes in both their peers but also institutions like the police and courts.

5. This has absolutely nothing to do with rape culture. This is about sex work. Neither “rape” nor “sexual assault” appear anywhere in the text.

6. So because I don’t have “Bloomberg Professional Service” I can’t say I’ve read this article but I know from the URL that it’s about the Duke Lacross players who had been falsely accused and they were railroaded by a soon-to-be disbarred state attorney. Long story short, if some asshole lawyer didn’t want to advance his career by breaking laws, taking over a police investigation and breaching procedure numerous times then lying about it, those students wouldn’t have faced their situation.

7. Huffington Post blog article sums up what (2) had to say: rape/sexual assault is a serious fucking crime and college review boards were made to oversee plagiarism, not felonies.

8. Broken link. :( but also it’s the same shit as mentioned in (1) and (7)

9. Wow, another old as fuck page. This one from 1996. The 1990s didn’t see men as being able to be victimized by women? Sounds like patriarchal gender norms have been harming men too =o

10. broken

11. broken

12. broken

13. According to this news article, people in the military are sexually assaulted by their peers, superiors. What this has to do with denying rape-culture, I don’t know. But if we recall from the previous installment that regions with higher rates of patriarchal values experienced higher rates of violence?

The VA denied her claim nevertheless, “Because they said I couldn’t prove it … since I had not brought it up when it happened and also because I had not shown any deviant behavior while in the service. I was outraged and felt compelled to talk about what happened.”

While it will go to any length to maintain public silence over the issue, the military machine has no such qualms within its own corridors. Guzman discloses, “Through the gossip mill we would hear of women who had reported being raped. No confidentiality was maintained nor any protection given to victims. The boys’ club culture is strong and the competition exclusive. That forces many not to report rape, because it is a blemish and can ruin your career.”

The department of defence reported that in fiscal year 2009, there were 3,230 reports of sexual assault, an increase of 11 percent over the prior year.

However, as high as the military’s own figures are of rape and sexual assault, victims and advocates Al Jazeera spoke with believe the real figures are sure to be higher.

The report attributes the huge increase to better reporting of incidents due to increased training and education about sexual assault and harassment.

Is THAT why 25 year old stats are useless? =o

14. “Men get raped in prison and so there’s so men victim of rape” = rape culture isn’t...? So if men are a bigger portion of sexual assaults or rape due to incarceration sexual violence, will you keep making “drop the soap” jokes? Will you laugh when the police arrest men of colour without due cause or justice? Will you give a shit about rape any other time than when women are talking about their own problems?

15. Fucking OP, trying to play another one on us! This is the same link as (9)

16. broken.

17. Thanks for the Swedish page on google translation. Real, uh. Something.

"The media is a female teacher who becomes pregnant by a 15-year-old boy described as a" tragedy ". But if a male teacher had done something similar, it will be spoken of as "grotesque".

Inge Nordhaug believes that men more often described as demons but other emotions and words are used when women abusers. "They become 'victims', while the man is the 'perpetrator' - one who is guilty.

So Swedish media has a pattern of portraying men as offenders and women as victim? Sounds like age-old sexism to me. So what’s the problem again for MRA/anti-feminist?

18.

Males were significantly more likely than females to report coercive sex or attempted rape, with similar but nonsignificant results observed for completed rape. White youths were more likely than nonwhite youths to report perpetrating coercive sex, and Hispanic youths were less likely than non-Hispanic youths to report perpetrating coercive sex. Similar, nonsignificant patterns were noted for youths reporting completed rape. Youths living in low-income households were less likely than youths living in higher-income households to report attempted rape.

“ Youths who begin perpetrating at younger ages are overwhelmingly male. It is not until age 18 years that female perpetrators emerge at notable rates.

Challenging Bias When Researching Sexual Perpetration

It is not uncommon to believe that a man cannot be raped by a woman.45,46 Gender stereotypes can make it difficult to imagine a dominant woman coercing or forcing an unwilling man to have sex.47 Accordingly, male victims of female perpetrators are judged more harshly than male victims of male perpetrators.48 Moreover, the same behaviors perceived to be sexually aggressive when committed by a male can be perceived as romantic or promiscuous when committed by a female.47,49 Nonetheless, physiological data suggest that men can be raped; an erection does not necessarily mean sexual arousal50 and can be reflexogenic.51 Adolescent health care professionals need to assess the potential for their own gender biases in this area so that they can be more effective in identifying and treating female perpetrators and male victims when they present.

19. CNN rehashes what we’ve already talked about in (2), (4), (13).

2 notes · View notes

red-pillgrimage · 8 years

Text

Debunking bullshit, partie deux

This is a continuation of a previous critique of a long-winded anti-feminist/MRA propaganda piece.

Domestic Violence

Women are perpetrators often as men.(1) 286 sources on assaults on partners by women(2) Women are more violent(3) Domestic violence being equally committed by women, only males get arrested(4) Men are over 40% of domestic abuse victims(5) Male DV victims are discriminated against(6) Gay and bisexual men experience abuse in intimate partner relationships at a rate of 2 in 5, which is comparable to the amount of domestic violence experienced by heterosexual women. (7) About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). (8) Men or DV is Not the leading cause of death among women under 50 (9) More DV facts (10)

1. An academic paper? What a surprise. But a mighty surprise indeed for anyone who actually bothers to finish reading it. I’ll take a guess that OP isn’t an academic because one of the keywords on the title page includes “Feminist Theory”.

It’s also of great importance to mention that in the introduction to the paper, the author makes the very narrow scope of the research known:

the article does not cover sexual assault because there is no controversy concerning the fact that almost all heterosexual rapes are perpetrated by men. When the term "violence" is used, it will refer to nonsexualphysical violence.

So I guess OP agrees with the author that “almost all heterosexual rapes are perpetrated by men” but I have a feeling the next post won’t necessarily agree. Does OP also think that physical violence is the only worth-while measure? What about emotional abuse? Psychological? Financial?Sexual? Are those not important measures of spousal violence as well as physical?

The Importance of Ending Cultural Norms Tolerating Male Violence

Until nearly the end of the 19th century, husbands were allowed to use "reasonable chastisement" to deal with "errant" wives (Calvert, 1974). Thus, even though female PV has been documented since the Middle Ages (George, 1994), men who "allowed" this were ridiculed. Thus male PV, like corporal punishment of children then and now, has been an accepted part of the culture, It has taken a major effort by feminists and their academic colleagues, including the author (Straus, 1976), to. change the continuing implicit cultural norm that accepts a certain amount of male PV.

So the author of the article wants us to know that it’s been legally & socially prescribed to beat your wife if she was “errant” up until the late Victorian period. Y’know, up until the late 1800s. What the author failed to mention is that this belief in the “duty”/”right” to beat women started centuries ago but was religiously predicated in the Tudor period. By means of publishing a little book known as the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), a couple of German priests outlined how one could detect demonic possession. Women, they argued, as the source of Original Sin, were predisposed to Satan’s influence. A ‘good’ woman was docile, quiet, obedient and weak. A ‘bad’(see: under Satan’s power) woman was opinionated, strong-willed and ‘disobedient’.

As centuries passed and religion was traded in for (pseudo)science, these Satanic influences were traded in for “biological instability”. “Hysteria” was initially conceptualized as a woman’s uterus was literally bouncing around inside of her and thus made her manic. Woman with a strong opinion? Must be her sexual organs, just smack her back in place!

And though the author outlined early on that only physical violence between partners was to be discussed in their research, for the sake of this section it is of great relevance to mention that “marital rape” was only outlawed as of the early 1970s-1980s for most western countries(Greece has only had marital rape law as of 2006). So your grandfather probably couldn’t beat his wife, but he could force himself on her sexually and not be considered a criminal rapist.

Gender Stereotypes

Most cultures define women as "the gentle sex," making it difficult to perceive violence by women as being prevalent in any sphere of life. More specifically, there are implicit norms tolerating violence by women, on the assumption that it rarely results in injury (Straus, Kaufman Kantor, & Moore, 1997). This assumption is largely correct, but as previously noted, it is also correct that about a third of homicides of partners are perpetrated by women, as well as about a third of nonfatal injuries (Catalano, 2006; Rennison, 2000; Straus, 2005).

Holy shit. Is there actual scientific evidence to show that women can in fact be violent contrary to patriarchal gender norms? Radical. If only there were a group of people looking to dismantle existing gender stereotypes which promote mentalities that women are incapable of violence.

Defense of Feminist Theory

even though male dominance and male privilege may no longer be the major cause of PV in more egalitarian western societies, dominance by either party, regardless of whether it the male or female partner, is associated· with an increased probability of PV (Straus, 2007a).Moreover, comparative studies have shown that the more male dominant the society or segment of society, the more PV (Archer, 2006; Straus,1994, 2007a; Yodanis, 2004). Perhaps most important, although ending male dominance and male privilege may not be central to ending PV in western nations; it is central to creating a better society for men as well as women.

Huh, so when one partner behaves in dominant and aggressive ways, violence is more likely? So male dominant societies likely value masculine values? Could this be why both men and women would exhibit these toxic masculinities in violent manner?

CONSEQUENCES OF THE DENIAL

The criticism inherent in this article is directed primarily to the research community, The thousands of dedicated women and their allies who developed and maintain services for battered women are part of a social movement that has benefited the entire society, not just women, The objective of social movements and advocacy groups. is to change society,

I am concerned that denial of the evidence On female PV may ultimately interfere with the very goals the denials intended to achieve because, when the evidence finally prevails, the discrepancy could undermine the credibility of the feminist cause. It may alienate young women from the feminist cause, and it could weaken the public base of feminist support. At the same time. casting PV as almost exclusively a male crime angers men who feel that they are. being unjustly accused and provides fuel for the fire of extremist men's groups. These organizations often have a larger antifeminist agenda and publicize feminist denial and distortion of the evidence on PV as part of that larger effort.”

Hahahahahaha. I was in tears reading this.

At the very top of an MRA anti-feminist evidence pile is an article that promotes feminist efforts and specifically warns against being used by “extremist men’s groups” who “often have a larger antifeminist agenda and publicize feminist denial and distortion of the evidence of PV as part of that larger effort.”

Pure fucking gold. Nice pick OP.

2. Ah, another academic source. Sorta. This isn’t really much ‘new’ to what has previously been said in (1). Especially seeing as OP sure as shit isn’t an academic, these academic ‘findings’ don’t mean shit. Unless you know the methodology employed, sample data and actually read the conclusion section of the peer-review research, findings don’t mean shit. See (1) for how that might work out.

3. Ah, another UK journalist. But I’m not sure this news paper article really says that “women are as violent as men”...

Male violence remains a more serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners. Female aggression tends to involve pushing, slapping and hurling objects. Yet men made up nearly 40 per cent of the victims in the cases that he studied - a figure much higher than previously reported.

“Women are as violent as men” but only constitute of aggressors and according to this data are less likely to injure. Hm, dubious conclusion from what is here.

Terrie Moffitt, professor of social behaviour at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London, admitted that women do engage in abusive behaviour and said the Home Office should fund research into the issue in the UK. "If we ask does women's violence have consequences for their kids then the answer is 'yes'," she said. "There is also an elevated risk of children being victims of domestic violence if there is central violence between parents." However, Dr Anne Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Durham, said that women should still receive the most support because they were the greater victims of domestic violence. "The outcome of violence is that women are more damaged by it and need the bulk of resources," she said. "But women's violence has become increasingly legitimised. There is a sense now that it's OK to 'slap the bastard'."

Well, this sounds about right: when parents are violent, it fucks up the kids both psychologically and potentially physically as well. However, the conclusion that women are more harmed by it and deserve the most of the resources is actually contrary to OP’s argument, isn’t it? Hell, (1) tried real hard to disprove that argument actually.

4. WOW OP, trying to play another fast one of us? This is the exact same link as (2), again distorting facts to promote wider antifeminist agenda.

5. Ah well, another british news paper article. Alright then. So what does this one say?

The official figures underestimate the true number of male victims, Mays said. "Culturally it's difficult for men to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. Men are reluctant to say that they've been abused by women, because it's seen as unmanly and weak."

So cultural gender norms prevent men from being perceived as “unmanly”/”weak”? I really wish we had a group of people looking to dismantle gender...

The number of women prosecuted for domestic violence rose from 1,575 in 2004-05 to 4,266 in 2008-09. "Both men and women can be victims and we know that men feel under immense pressure to keep up the pretence that everything is OK," said Alex Neil, the housing and communities minister in the Scottish parliament. "Domestic abuse against a man is just as abhorrent as when a woman is the victim."

Hm. The number of women prosecuted for PV nearly triples from 2004 to 2009 even though the reported crime rate actually drops for women? Doesn’t sound like there’s any conspiracy here protecting women from being prosecuted for conjugal violence.

6. This privately funded research demonstrates that the outcome of decades of feminist activism amidst a patriarchal society has lead to resources being distributed towards women who are victims of partner violence.

It is absolutely abhorrent when the police blame victims or mock their dismay. Victim-blaming has no place in society, nor do patriarchal values that promote the idea that men cannot be victimized by women. As (1) outlined, regions with more conservative gender norms have higher rates of PV, which we can assume leads to higher rates of dismissal by law/courts. Soooo republican leaning institutions= raped male deniers?

7. Another broken link, but if I may infer from the “conclusion” OP derived, non-straight men assault their partners as often as straight women? What? ? ? How does this demonstrate anything OP wants? ? ?

8. So uh, this fact sheet that’s 18 years old (though based on 19-26 year old data now) isn’t really scientific. Know how I know?

The research usually has been done with mostly white, middle-class lesbians who are sufficiently open about their sexual orientation to have met researchers seeking participants in the lesbian community. Subsequently, these findings may not apply to women who are less open, less educated, or of other ethnic backgrounds.

Neeeext.

9. Lol? Really? Why OP put this here I have no idea. Probably to make this shit list longer. This is straight up a fact-checking page about what some idiot said during a government session. Not a researcher, not an activist, not a statistician. Just a politician throwing out numbers into the wind. So this one dude made some shit up, sooooo?

10. This fact sheet makes a good point

Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV

So all those different % we saw across the different studies are actually comparing apples and oranges? Wow.

Within military and male treatment samples, only 39% of IPV was bi-directional; 43.4% was MFPV and 17.3% FMPV.

Well I mean, this is straight up what we saw earlier from (1) about “male dominant” parts of society having higher rates of PV.

#MRA #Men's rights activism #Feminism #Radfem #Intersectionality #Antifa #lol OP can't read for shit

3 notes · View notes

red-pillgrimage · 8 years

Text

Debunking bullshit, partie un

A There’s this wall-of-text/links going around promoting some rather ignorant ideas on some skewed/misused data. Here’s my modest take.

Let’s take a look. [this segment brought to you by @feels-by-the-foot]

“The Wage Gap”

The Wage (1) Gap (2) is (3) a (4) myth. (5) 1 (6) 2 (7) Women tend to choose majors that pay a lower national median pay. (8) Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces (9) Labor force participation rate(10) for men has never been lower. (11) Women (12) in (13) some (14) cases (15) make more(16) than(17) men. (18) And their husbands (19) dont have (20) a problem with it either. (21) Women CHOOSE (22) to stay away from (23) STEM field (24) There is no STEM gender gap in the U.S (25) Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men (26)

1. This is a broken link to a ticket distributor ? ? ?

2.This is a UK journalist's opinion about the 57 years predicted for women to make as much as men and their opinion on another prediction that manager salary will be equalized between men and women by 2067. Their “big conclusion” is “it's not the gender pay gap that is inequitable for women in their twenties and thirties. It's the maternity leave gap.” This is a huge red herring. Sure, on face-value we can address the fact that men in the UK are only offered two weeks off after the birth of a child by their employers. But we're talking about wage gap, not maternity leave. Maternity leave is but ONE reason people rationalize why women ought to make less. And no offence to this surely-esteemed journalist but she ought to read the own links she sourced when she complained that it's the discrepancy is a result of comparing part-time to full time, 'cause as the link of an article discussing a study of pay at 197 organizations, covering 43,312 employees, showed that in certain sectors, such as finance and law, women working full time can earn just over half the amount men get.

In the UK until late 2016, it was perfectly legal for companies to force their employees to sign gagging clauses to prevent colleagues from discussing salaries, bonuses, etc. Unlike what the journalist implied, legislating disclosure of gendered pay isn't “forcing society to pay”. A legally-enforced culture of secrecy only reinforces preexisting biases(women work less hard than men) with gendered exploitation(if we pay women less, they won't be able to tell anyone without legal reprimand!) But I mean this link was debunked as soon as their OWN source stated “in certain sectors ... women working full time can earn just over half the amount men get.”

3. What a surprise, another journalist chewing up some incomplete synopsis of studies from other news sources. In this one, the U.S. journalist who works for a conservative think-tank wants us to believe that

“The Paycheck Fairness bill would set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in a precarious job market. It is 1970s-style gender-war feminism for a society that should be celebrating its success in substantially, if not yet completely, overcoming sex-based workplace discrimination.”

There’s two main things that need to be addressed here. First, this U.S. journalist makes these claims about the impact of this bill that would allow for employees to file a suit for gender-based salary is the imminent gender-war & economic “havoc” of workers’ rights. How is this conclusion found? Who knows/cares, certainly not the author. But among their rationalizations they cite

“A recent survey found that young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts, mostly because more of them earn college degrees.”

Yes. This study did point out that in cities where steel mills and other men-centered workplaces have suffered that women who are single and living in the city can make single-digit improvements over men. Yes, this study did point out that black & latina women enroll in post-secondary education at much higher rates than their respective counterparts. This study shows that in very specific economic and demographic situations, women can make more than men if they’re single, if they’re in the city, if they’re young. The american dream :’)

4. Oh wow, a seven year old blog post that primarily sources itself on a non peer-review book(including broken links to the book’s website) and then some straw-man arguments using arbitrary online news links. Oh wait, the blog post does claim one link as a “study” but in fact it’s just a research assistant’s summary of data published in 2000. Which in fact means it’s data collected from 1999. Kinda stale, dontchathink... So this US blogger makes it pretty easy and simply when they flat-out state

“In one sense, O'Neill is right about a wage gap -- on average, women earn about 80 cents to a man's dollar.”

So while the author asserts without blinking that men do in fact make more than women for the same job, they then provide a full list of rationalizations for why this is acceptable yet. still. denying. there. is. a. wage. gap. idontevencanyouhelpmeunderstand.

Blogger goes on to say

Due to the simple laws of supply and demand, these occupations pay more and contribute immensely to the pay gap.

Actually, “these occupations” which “contribute immensely to the pay gap” are pretty damn racialized. For some reason author believes that U.S. govt data doesn’t compartmentalize by profession/domain and it’s all just “men v women” for comparison. This isn’t so. This is why they argue that men work dangerous jobs and higher skill jobs than women and that’s why they make more money (cuz like they’re just better/deserving ok!11!) but then you see in the actual data that it’s latino men and black men who work in the dirty/dangerous/shitty jobs which were previously argued as “higher paying’. And this doesn’t explain why within the same fields, working the same hours, men make more. Hell, it doesn’t even explain why men who enter feminine gender-typed workfields are perceived as more “courageous”/”harder worker” and sooner promoted than women(See: glass - escalator).

5. Onto a pundit who is regularly invited to Republican party retreats and doesn’t even deny there is an income gap between men and women. Hell, they’ll even take it one step further with their conclusion

So we shouldn’t expect that 77 percent figure ever to rise to 100 -- or even want it to.

This doesn’t seem like a source to add onto a list trying to deny there is a wage gap. hbu

6. I’m going to guess this article added from The Wall Street Journal was done through an uneducated use of google searches for a given topic without having actually read the content of the article because like most of us, present author included, don’t have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal. However, I do know what the article is about and we’ve already covered the content in (3). How do I know?

A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men.

Gee, if you’re young/single/nochild/Urban/crumbling masculine gender-typed industries, you might make 8% more than men?

7. Here comes another sensationalist news OPINION article, this time from CBS news that puts up this non peer-review book on a pedestal as some myth breaking weapon. Sadly, it’s the same dulled out logic from (4): the same boring old dangerous = higher pay that isn’t supported when you look at the salary of loggers or fishers.

8. This “career news” article tried to make some good points but overlooked a very, very serious issue. In comparing the majors between men and women, you’re kinda forgetting that ~70% of Americans don’t have post-secondary degrees.

So while it’s correct to point out that choice of majors may account for some disparity between gendered salaries, it doesn’t account for the other 70% of people from the US who don’t have majors but are above 25 and likely to need to find employment. It does however raise the issue of social biases that gender-type women and employment. ;))))

Addendum: They purposely mentioned women in aerospace so I’ll just leave this here

9. This NY times tried to play some fast-and-loose number games by employing sentences like “According to seasonally unadjusted data” and others like “they held 50.3 percent of the nation’s nonfarm payroll jobs in the raw numbers.” Notice anything yet? Well lets just quote the article to conclude the point

Male-dominated industries are actually especially cyclical in two different ways: They are not only influenced by the business cycle, but also by the seasonal cycle. Industries like construction, which tend to employ men, get more work in warmer months.

If you adjust for these regular seasonal factors that affect the job market, women would have held just less than half of the nation’s payroll jobs in January, at 49.9 percent.

Confused why this wasn’t about the wage gap? Me too. This was just an article about how “women are overtaking men in the workforce” @ 49.9% =o

10. I think the OP of this wall of text was trying to play a fast-and-loose one ‘cause this isn’t about the wage gap at all. This is a link that compares what percentage of men worked in 1948 to now and how many women worked in 1948 and now. ‘Lo and behold: ~70% of men work in 2012 and ~58% of women work in 2012, both seasonally adjusted.

11. So this is exactly the same as (10), even going so far as using the same charts and really not in any way talking about any differences in how men and women are paid any differently for doing the same job. This was just an article about men’s declining participation in the workforce.While a fascinating topic, pretty irrelevant to the wage gap.

12. Clickbait BusinessInsider article that claims that because one university president in Utah says that there’s a 2K salary difference between students’ according to gender, it must be so everywhere yet doesn’t ignore that only 5% of students are in the higher initial pay, nor does it say where they are in 5 years, or 10 years, or 25.

13. So this Reuters article has a brief summary of a study led by Paul Hodgson from the Corporate Institute. This study claims sampled Directors showed that the median income was just under 15% higher for women than men. They’re also out-numbered 8 to 1. Nevermind that a quick search through a more recent Reuters article also states that even tho median is higher, the average executive salary is still much higher for men than the median for the few women around. What’s of real interest in this article is the statement that

Director pay is typically far below what top corporate executives are awarded

Why is this interesting? Because Paul Hodgson writes more than a single thing and among his own writings:

Yet, despite the findings of the two surveys, according to an Institute for Women’s Policy Research survey cited by the WSJ – The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation 2013 – women CEOs still lag behind men. Using a much wider sample than the 300 or so CEOs used by the AP and WSJ, female CEOs only earned 80% of what their male counterparts earned.

Heck, even CFO who are women make less, 16% less on average

14. Oh boy. Well for some reason this article is in the print page format, but that’s cool. This ABCnews article likes to promote the idea that because a handful (literally 16 in 2010) of women have become CEOs and have demanded more salary in that one year (2009) that suddenly this makes any kind of difference that only 4.4% (now) of Fortune500 CEO constitute of women. The 2009 article points out that Meyer of Yahoo took home the biggest package of the year for 47 million. A quick scan of this list of the 100 highest paid CEOs of the US place Meyer at #18 on the list, with #1 having 147million. Why are we getting uppity again about a few women getting paid?? ? ? ?

15. If you’re a young woman between 21-30 and living in NYC, you’ll do gr8 says this NY times article which discussed an analysis prepared by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College. Now what I appreciate about this article is they probably took the time to read more than just another newspaper’s summary of the content because they actually provided a very fascinating breakdown of salary by borough for NYC.

Young women from the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens make more than young men from those boroughs. Young women from Staten Island make the same as men. Among Manhattanites, the median wage for workers in their 20s was $46,859 for men and $45,840 for women. The gender wage advantage for women in their 20s was widest among whites with some college education, blacks and Asians with advanced degrees and Hispanic women who were high school or college graduates. Young men in the city still make more than young women in a number of jobs, including psychologist, registered nurse, high school teacher, bank teller and bartender. In high-paying Wall Street jobs, men heavily outnumber women, which is one reason that Martin Kohli, a regional economist with the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, described the women’s wage gains as “a surprising finding.”

Remember back in (4) how the racialization of gender might be is impacting the way in which certain regional factors come into play? How about NYC’ stop-and-frisk policies? Or Dallas’? What about the way in which nearly a quarter of Florida’s black men have criminal records? Might this impact the way in which we perceive statistics based on income?

16.

“Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.”

“Chung also claims that, as far as women's pay is concerned, not all cities are created equal. Having pulled data on 2,000 communities and cross-referenced the demographic information with the wage-gap figures, he found that the cities where women earned more than men had at least one of three characteristics. Some, like New York City or Los Angeles, had primary local industries that were knowledge-based. Others were manufacturing towns whose industries had shrunk, especially smaller ones like Erie, Pa., or Terre Haute, Ind. Still others, like Miami or Monroe, La., had a majority minority population. (Hispanic and black women are twice as likely to graduate from college as their male peers.)“ “While the economic advantage of women sometimes evaporates as they age and have families, Chung believes that women now may have enough leverage that their financial gains may not be completely erased as they get older. “

Nothing more to add than their own words.

17. This is actually the same topic, using the same sources by The Wall Street Journal as from (6). Yes, SOME educated-single-childless-urban-women-21to30 do make a bit more than men of their own age for a time. This is still not a national trend for all women. So yeah, there’s a gap even if one small subset is doing ‘ok’...?

18. This Forbes article does raise some interesting tidbits but nothing that supports the idea that there’s anything myth about the gender gap. So let me excise the important stuff.

Women earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2010, up from 76 cents in 2000. Moreover, recent reports suggest that young urban women now earn 8% more than male peers, likely due to higher college graduation rates.

Ah, so education = 8% increase over someone with no education? What’s the disparity between educated men and uneducated women? How does education disprove wage gap? ? ? But there’s more.

The fact remains, however, that men still earn more in almost every U.S. occupation—except in a telling few. An analysis of 2009 median weekly earnings for full-time workers, collected by the BLS, reveals at least 15 jobs where women earn slightly more than male colleagues.

Oh gee. “Slightly more” salary in 15 out of “every U.S. occupation”.

Perhaps most surprising, women out-earn men in several male-dominated construction jobs. Female construction laborers, construction supervisors, maintenance painters, and aircraft and vehicle mechanics earn slightly above the median earnings for both sexes—despite holding just 3% of these jobs.

Connecticut College economics professor Candace Howes ... conjectures that the few women who enter construction and mechanical jobs are likely highly skilled and more concentrated in union jobs. “It was unionization that provided women access to these male-dominated jobs, and on average those wages are higher [than non-union jobs],” says Howes.

Ah, so union jobs pay more and that’s why “slightly more” salary can be extrapolated for 1 job out of “every”? Cool.

There is some evidence that men are discriminated against in female-dominated jobs. A 2010 study found that (SPOILER)men were less likely to be called for an interview in fields with 65% or more female workers, an attitude which may be reflected in wages. Employment researcher Laurence Shatkin, author of 2011 Career Plan, says that discrimination or feelings of not fitting in could cause higher turnover rates among (SPOILER) men in these jobs, which wouldn’t allow them to gain seniority and would negatively affect wages.

But here is something that gave me a pretty big larf. It was just so... ironic, that it was great. I wonder if the author put it in originally or their editor threw it in for the fragile masculinities who may be offended by an article discussing women being paid more in what I assume we’d call “almost none” of U.S. occupations. So a minority that is perceived as stereotypically different is less likely to receive a call-back, and even if they do, they’re subject to leave their workplace for feelings of not fitting in with the existing culture? That does sound like an awful time.

19. Wow, an Elle magazine partnership with MSCBC. This sure sounds like a legitimate source of sampling, amirite. If we sampled 70K people on the internet, would this be an accurate representation of people nationally? Would it account for racial differences? Are the kind of people who answer News-sites/Elle magazine online questionnaires about partner income/household responsibilities are really the average citizens? Very little scientific rigour. Having a massive sample size can actually be statistically harmful. Maybe Elle can cover that next month in “Money, Sex and Love”

20. So has a business partnership with CareerBuilder.com, which serves as the exclusive provider of job listings and services to CNN.com. And CareerBuilder.com is here today to bring us the news that thanks to a survey they gave on their own website, they’re here to give us facts. Real facts about all kinds of people.

Nearly one in four (24 percent) working dads feel work is negatively impacting their relationship with their children. Forty-eight percent have missed a significant event in their child's life due to work at least once in the last year and nearly one in five (18 percent) have missed four or more.

What does this have to do with wage gap? Nothing. It’s a sob story about how fathers choose their work over their families. Sounds like Goku/Vegeta to me. This isn’t as tagged “husbands are cool with wives making more/all the money” this is “dads want to be with their kids”. Not the same not even related topic.

21. To be honest, this is the least intellectually boring article to date. And why? Because it’s actually psychology and feminism. Two things right up my alley. While the average guy reader of the article will shout “Yeah! Women don’t support us enough to be full-time dads!” It’s actually a layer or two deeper than that.

The idea that Mother Knows Best for all things home and family is deeply ingrained and complicated by gender roles, socialization and culture, experts say.

This is probably a great time to mention that being a woman ≠ feminist. Being a woman doesn’t make you impervious to believing in sexism, racism, ableism or anything else. So if you hear anyone, be they man, woman, gender-nonconforming, whoever: never accept that a group can be better parents than another group. Individuals over other individuals, but there is nothing inherent to parenting. if you dare bring up that “but yung gurls like 2 play with dolls” shit I’m going to laugh, ‘cause that’s just proof that they needed practice very likely a sign of socialization and culture.

"There are a lot of pressures that keep reinforcing the division of responsibility in parenting that leaves moms in the control position — the 'expert parent' role," says demographer Catherine Kenney of Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio, who has studied how mothers' beliefs affect fathers' involvement.

What?! Spouses who are also women who uphold conservative/”traditional”/bullshit gender & parenting roles are likely to have an effect on how their spouses rear the children? This almost sounds like if the any parent is sexist, it can affect how their kids are raised =o

New research into the idea of "maternal gatekeeping" shows how attitudes and actions by the mother may promote or impede father involvement.

Wait, after shoving the idea that “motherhood” was their primary goal in life through music/movies/books/musicals/plays, after making them leave their jobs (without any maternity leave in the U.S.) you suddenly feel it novelty that women internalized the idea that the beliefs of women as “natural” caretakers will have an impact on the spouse’s involvement?

Unsurprisingly, the rest of this almost-delightful article just says “be a good father or be a good mother. Talk about sharing responsibilities with your spouse and avoiding falling back on social stereotypes that may prevent you from fulfilling your sincere family”.

23. Yikes, a more boring and less interesting rehash of blogger (4). Only talks about the non peer review book in which nothing more than speculation on numbers. Sure, the guy who wrote the book is a doctor, but that’s a PhD in education. Not exactly the pertinent field at hand.

24. Huh, so another article which says women are just as math-smart but a combination of social factors just fuck them over in life but as the scope of the article was about professors and we earlier covered that less 31% of people from the U.S. have bachelors. What else did we cover earlier? Uninviting workplace cultures focused on gender stereotypes are likely to have higher turnover rates or disinterest? Almost sounds like social factors are producing gender disparities.

25. I’m just going to leave this here ‘cause it’s maybe not a STEM problem at the bachelor’s level but it’s certainly an ET problem.

#antifa #wage gap #MRA #MRA bullshit #Debunking #Capitalism #Exploitation #PoC #intersectionality

2 notes · View notes