Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Dragon Red

Member Since: Fri Jul 05, 2013
Posts: 1,293
Subj: Re: Context is the most important thing when making comparisons.
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 at 09:13:15 am CDT (Viewed 707 times)
Reply Subj: Context is the most important thing when making comparisons.
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 at 03:26:59 am CDT (Viewed 747 times)

Previous Post

There are some things in that article which I don't get and looks like political spin to me, but there are a few things that my more basic mind can understand and agree with.

First:
Men disproportionately choose higher-risk, higher paying occupations with greater safety risks for occupational injuries and fatalities (e.g., oil field worker, roofer, and logging).

That is true. If there are risky jobs to be had, more often than not you will see men doing them rather than women. I have never in my life known of a female roofer. Why don't women choose to do these kinds of jobs now?

Second:
Men are more willing to work outdoors in uncomfortable, physically demanding work environments (construction, oil field workers, commercial fishing, logging).

This is absolutely true. All the beast of burden jobs that need doing, particularly construction and road maintenance and other gruelling jobs, again, vast majority of workers are male. I have equally never seen and heard of a female builder.

Third:
Men are more willing to work in dirty or unpleasant environments with minimal human contact (e.g., prison guard, steel worker, truck drivers).

This is true. If there is a shit job to be done, 9 times out of 10 its going to be a man.

Fourth:
Men are less likely than women to be absent from work (e.g., doctor’s visits, sick days, taking time off when children are sick, etc.).

That is absolutely true, and that is discriminatory against men too. Why can't the man take time off when children are sick? It seems to fall to the mother to do all the time. Its because we expect women to take time off to look after kids, or to go and have kids. This one is definitely changeable within biological limits.

Fifth:
Men work longer hours per week than women on average.

That is true, because women on average have to look after the kids.


I feel there needs to be more context in the article, are they comparing married men to married women, or single men to single women? Because you could compare single men to married women with kids and suddenly you can make men look amazing by comparison and more deserving of extra pay. Or is it just "men generally" to "women generally" ?

For me this is difficult because women do have other responsibilities in addition to work. So, if they can't be there as often as men (for whatever reasons) they will get less money. So unless society is willing to let men work less to absorb some of those responsibilities then... things will stay as they are.

There are much better studies than this that look into the question honestly.

The issue is, if you look for cliffs notes or sound bites than more liberals will quote a number without other context (although the gap is real even with contexts) and conservatives will pretend it does not exist and make it purely about choice, which it is not.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 59.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software