Toi make it simpler, these are the points JP makes that I think are important:
Equality of opportunity is morally and functionally important for society but equality of outcome is neither of these things.
So, what do we do? If we give everyone the same chance and look after those who have issues then how exactly are we failing?
Why are we all entitled to the same outcome?
Give everyone the same chance. Help those who can't compete. It's not their fault.
There is no gender pay gap in women under 40 but there is a massive one in women over 40; there are many factors that contribute to this, and for sure bia will be one of them, but it’s only a about 10% (or thereabouts) of the variance and many other variables not associated with bias are at work here.
So how can treating people equally make any of this worse?
Yes, of course men and women are different.
But why should that affect the way people live their lives? What gives JP the right to use that differeice to categorise people?
Equality isn't frightning, it's liberating.
but there is a massive one in women over 40; there are many factors that contribute to this, and for sure bia will be one of them, but it’s only a about 10% (or thereabouts) of the variance and many other variables not associated with bias are at work here.
One of the things we can do is make sure that women who bring up kids and take time away from work to do so are not punished by the pensions system for that. This again is not taking away a right from men, it's making the outcomes equal.
Or as a simple example, if you have 5 kids and give one of them 5 sweets and the others none what happens?
Is you think again and give each of the kids 1 sweet is taking away rights from the one who got 5 the last time please explain why.
There is no gender pay gap in women under 40
Office of national statistics says otherwise, stating the gap is small but is still there.
“<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">When looking at age groups, the gap for full-time workers remains small at younger ages; however, from age 40 onwards the gap widens reaching its peak between ages 50 to 59.</span>
- Holding all other factors constant, for 2017 women’s pay growth in respect of age was lower than men’s pay growth and also stopped growing at a younger age.”
“...at the age of 24 men’s pay has grown by 2.9 percentage points more (since the level at age 16), but this divergence in growths continues and by the age of 48 men’s pay has grown 16.3 percentage points (since the level at age 16) more than women’s.
Firstly giving rights and empowerment to women is taking nothing away from men/boys. It’s something people try and use to stop us making the world equal, elevating people to a position of equality does remove privilege from those who have it already, that is not a right or something you deserve, it’s something that has been taken from others over the years, it’s only fair we give it back.
Well said and to me this is the crux of the matter. Anyone who can't see that and just sees everything as taking things away from privileged white males really doesn't realise the privilege they have.
Edukator -- I'm certainly not aware of everything geetee has posted on here, but from what I have read I don't sense any negativity against women from him.
For example, I can see he started a thread about International men's day, but I don't see him being negative about women on it, although nonetheless he received a fair bit of abuse. This is despite him turning the insensitive responses of others (e.g. someone saying 'Is this just another name for Steak & Blowjob day?') back on track towards something more useful (e.g. his response 'No it’s another name for men are 85% of suicides days'). (The Steak & Blowjob poster remained unscathed by abuse).
I also see he posted a link to what was essentially a trans-awareness blog post, but not a single person replied.
I found his opening up about his experience of domestic abuse on here to be brave and insightful. And perhaps more importantly, even when he received abuse and victim blaming on that thread, he remained calm and respectful. This thread has got about 4x more replies than that one, which is pretty s**t.
To get back to Jordan Peterson. I just don't find his arguments particularly persuasive.
He's found an audience by telling a group who were worried that their special status is being diminished that they are still special.
He is presenting a lot of pseudo intellectual speculation as fact and drawing conclusions that appear just to be based on his opinion of how society should function. Very little of it appears to be substantiated.
Can I pop this in here
Another conservative who is regularly accused of being a race traitor, nut job, right wing fascist etc etc. There does seems to be a bit of a pattern in so much as anyone who doesn't subscribe to the western democracies being set up specifically to oppress people in whatever minority (essentially anyone that's not a white male AFAICT) gets pretty badly personally abused.
It feels like the loudest (and most controversial) voices both on the left and right get heard and the vast majority of people who are somewhat in the middle are asked to pick from two shitty sides.
Bertrand Russell said - The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Now they all have a platform too.
I agree with some of JP's stuff I disagree with other stuff isn't that completely normal?
A bigot is someone who is intolerant of people who hold views different to their own.
The flaw in your logic here is implying that all views are of equal merit. I'm intolerant of people who hold racist views, does that make me a bigot?
I’m intolerant of people who hold racist views, does that make me a bigot?
Depends on how you prosecute that intolerance and in reaction to what provocation.
If as a result of an otherwise civil conversation with someone, they expressed a view that might reasonably be regarded as racist, you elected to wage a campaign of hate against them in public or on social media, then yes, I think that would make you a bigot.
<EDIT>
If you elected to try and point out why you found their opinion to be offensive in a civil way and persuade them to an alternative but in doing so found them unwilling to change their view and subsequently severed all ties with them, then no. That's precisely what I would do (and have done).
Well I think in the last few pages plenty has been posted questioning JP's statements, pointing out where he deviates from evidence to unsupported conclusions and where his views offend people. As it seems we always deviate from the topic when real questions are raised.
Office of national statistics says otherwise, stating the gap is small but is still there.
These stats from ONS show something different. I've actually contacted the ONS to see if they can explain why there is a discrepancy between the data sets they publish but I never heard back. It might be related to overtime pay but I cannot be sure. The link is here:
It's largely irrelevant though since all the data I can find shows that when in like for like roles, men and women are paid the same and the gap that emerges is the result of choice rather than bias. If you look at the data from the Scandinavian countries you can see that trend.
^That's not worth the paper it's written on really.
gender pay gap looks pretty real here
Yes that's because it looks at all age groups rather than the age sub groups of the data I posted. When you account for age (which is just one variable that the above set doesn't account for) the gap disappears in those under 40 (in fact there are some age groups in some years where the vairance is in favour of women) but rises to about 14% in those over 40.
But it makes no difference anyway because all this data relates to all men and all women and does not show any disparity or bias between men and women in the workplace in the same roles; it simply reflects decisions that they make in the workplace (and largerly decisions that men and women make after the age of 40).
This all goes back to the difference between equality of opportunity not being the same thing as equality of outcome. The former is somethign we should absolutely aim for because it benefits everyone. The latter is undesirable because it would require social engineering that it ineffecient and not for the common good.
it simply reflects decisions that they make in the workplace (and largerly decisions that men and women make after the age of 40).
This seems rather unsubstansiated to me, please elaborate
But also women should not be disadvantaged in terms of pensions etc. by raising children, this is a serious issue for a lot of women now. We are also in a big state of change which is moving in the right direction.
The latter is undesirable because it would require social engineering that it ineffecient and not for the common good.
The world has been socially engineered into the way it is now, only recently did the concept of parental leave appear, flexible working for men, help with childcare to help women back to work. Prior to that the society was structured to keep men on top which is shown by the drop off in women in senior roles. It's a culture that is locked in and needs broken.
This seems rather unsubstansiated to me, please elaborate
I grant you it's a hypothesis but consider this:
The supposition is that the paygap can only be explained by bia, but the data doesn't support that when you do multi-variate factor analysis, including accounting for age.
If the work place does not lead to gross differences in earnings between men and women under 40, what else explains the disparity after that age?
We know that men and women in the same role earn the same amount. That's been proven many times in many different studies. So the difference in earnings in the over 40s has to be based on people's career paths.
There is unequivocal evidence that women are not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership within organisations. You could try to argue that this itself is because of bias, but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40 (and the jump is huge; it goes from zero to 14%).
Jordan Peterson cites work he did with a group of the biggest Canadian law firms who were desperately trying to hold onto their senior female assocaites and promote them to partner but were finding they just couldn't do it. Huge numbers of them were taking a step back and not wanting partner when the firms desperately wanted to promote them.
It's a hypothesis I grant you, but it makes sense to me that the answer is this -
why would anyone want a job in a senior leadership position in a ftse 100 company? It makes no sense.You have to work 70 hours a week, take a whole lot of crap and stress and you'll never see your kids (assuming you have them).
Why would you do that when you can earn £100k a year for a job that still lets you also have a life? My own wife is a great example. She got promoted to captain at British Airways precisely so that she can go 75% and still earn more money than as a fullt time FO.
I think women are in tune with the sensible and more fulfilling options in life to be frank, so I think the more relevant question isn't 'why aren't women earning more' but 'why are so many men willing to sacrifice the best part of their lives for position, power and status?'
There is unequivocal evidence that women are not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership within organisations. You could try to argue that this itself is because of bias, but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40 (and the jump is huge; it goes from zero to 14%).
Jordan Peterson cites work he did with a group of the biggest Canadian law firms who were desperately trying to hold onto their senior female assocaites and promote them to partner but were finding they just couldn’t do it. Huge numbers of them were taking a step back and not wanting partner when the firms desperately wanted to promote them.
In a system where these women probably have a husband who is successful and stigmatised if he sits back and looks after the kids etc so the role defaults to the woman who feels she has no choice in that?
I’m certainly not aware of everything geetee has posted on here, but from what I have read I don’t sense any negativity against women from him.
He has a very strange agenda.
Posts about being "threatened" by 2 or 3 middle aged women at a fairground and how he felt physically at risk.
Put up his post about the "abusive" relationship he was in when younger and how bad he felt. He was banging the office bike behind her boyfriends back and she was a bit of a Louise.
That strange tale of the bullying he suffered at the hands of an older female.
He seems to go from one negative "female" experience to another.
TBH I don't believe half of the things he posts, there is a least a little poetic license in his tales.
Always harping on about stepping back so his Mrs could have a career and how much he loves being a father. So not really sure what his problem is.
Wish I could sit back and send the Mrs out to the graft and get the main income.
In a system where these women probably have a husband who is successful and stigmatised if he sits back and looks after the kids etc so the role defaults to the woman who feels she has no choice in that?
I100% agree, and even more of an issue, I think both parties end up feeling they have no choice; the role of fathers is marginalised in society (by which I mean it's not seen or rewarded as being as important) and so the opportunity for men to gain a sense of value, purpose and satisfaction from being a father is severely (though not entirely) restricted.
This is why equality of opportunity is so important; we have to create a situation where the cultural barriers are removed for both men and women - men to be recognised as having an important role to play in the family and women as having an important role to play in business. I've never argued that this is not the case and neither has Jordan Peterson, which is why it always surprises me that people react so badly to him.
I think we're getting there (towards a more equal opportunity basis) but we run the risk of making a false step if we only ever interpret a lack of euiality of outcome as eveidence of inequal opportunities. The evidence from Scandinavia, where they've gone further than anyone to create a more equal (opportunity) society is that you see the same polarisation of choices.
And this is JP's point. If you deliberately try to engineer equality of outcome, apart from having the impossibly difficult decision as to just how many factors are you looking to equalise (because it's way more complex than just gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc), you also have to address whether this is what people actually want. Will it make us happier?
He has a very strange agenda.
I think anyone reading my posts and yours are going to be left in no doubt as to who is the better balanced human being buddy.
I think anyone reading my posts and yours are going to be left in no doubt as to who is the better balanced human being buddy.
Balanced????
Are you going to start quoting you and your best mates IQ's again? 🙂
I think you are at the very least deluded, if not an outright fantasist, with the crap that you spout.
I think you are at the very least deluded, if not an outright fanatist, with the crap that you spout.
Thanks for sharing your opinion buddy.
Geetee wrote,
There is unequivocal evidence that women are not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership within organisations. You could try to argue that this itself is because of bias, but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40
I'd expect that people under 40 are also not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership- how much of the "bias suddenly emerging as a factor" is an artifact caused by the age of senior leaders?
mikewsmith
Well I think in the last few pages plenty has been posted questioning JP’s statements, pointing out where he deviates from evidence to unsupported conclusions and where his views offend people. As it seems we always deviate from the topic when real questions are raised.
Yes, like the brilliantly clear definition of white privilege you gave. Seems perfectly justifiable to call someone a racist because they disagree with your definition of something you can't quantify or describe.
🙁 Hebrews 13:8 Shakes head, walks back away from thread.
I’d expect that people under 40 are also not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership- how much of the “bias suddenly emerging as a factor” is an artifact caused by the age of senior leaders?
Well it's true that seniority is still a (relative) product of age; obviously there's a strong correlation though it's not causal and the age legislation makes it illegal to use age as a determining factor in that way. But clearly the amount of experience you have is a relevant factor in your candidacy for senior leadership positions and the longer you've been around the more of that you'll have. Plus people are almost never promoted to a level higher than the one they currently occupy.
But I'm not sure I fully understand your point.
Are you suggesting that bias might exist in the more senior ranks because they are older and therefore more likely to suffer from the legacy of the past? That could be a variable I guess, and since the more senior the promotion, the more senior the people making the decion might well be. But it feels unlikely.
To be clear on my position, I don't think that bias is the determining factor. Undoubtedly bias exists as it always will but it exists along many more lines than simply just gender and I don’t think it accounts for much of the variance we see in earnings in the population. I have read elsewhere that it accounts for about 10% of the variance.
Me: Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?
geetee: I don’t see what that has to do about anything?
To my way of thinking it has to do with quite a lot. Because in order to determine what to do about it (and address both immediate and long term threats of it happening again) one needs to understand the killer. In order to understand what might have motivated the individual to mow down people in the street, one would assumedly require reliable information including (and not limited to) the suspect's background, associations, mental health history, behaviours, writings, radicalisation?, internet activity, testimony of family/friends etc.
geetee: I didn’t really read much about the specific incident and have no interest in doing so.
Neither has JP as far as we know. But he claims to know not only why the killer did it ('angry at God' etc, no evidence given) but how best we prevent it happening again ('enforce monogamy')
geetee: If someone is so angry (sic) that they drive a car into a crowd of peopel to kill or maim then, you don’t need much more evidence to conclude that this is both horribly wrong and the product of a derrainged mind.
Really? Somehow I'm not convinced that the gathering of evidence and background on a suspect is a process performed simply in order to satisfy the public that killing a crowd of people is 'horribly wrong'.
What if Minassian has been radicalised by, say, Islamist literature, or, say, an ultra-misogynist interwebs cult? Are there others waiting in the wings? Thankfully at present we are not able to halt the criminal investigation simply because Peterson's one-size-fits all presupposition that he was 'angry at God/lack of success with women'.
geetee: I’m more interested in explaining your misunderstanding of what Peterson was saying when he tried to explain why someone like Minassian might have acted the way they did.
Confusing. On the one hand you claim to be 'not interested' in what motivated Minassian to kill. Yet on the other hand you are interested in explaining to me why he killed?
I'm all ears. But there is a problem - you don't seem to have understood my questions. That could be my poor writing, I'd not be surprised at that. But when JP specifically stated that Minassian was 'angry at God etc' he is not presenting it as a general line of 'inquiry'. He doesn't 'TRY to explain why'. He TELLS the world why. From the pulpit, so to speak. So there, at least, I see no misunderstanding on my part. He simply stated that Minassian was 'angry at God for '. No inquiry. No case evidence provided. For all we know Minassian 'may' have been angry at 'God', or The West, or Canada, or women, some ****ed up polarised view of politics/society, or cyclists, existential angst, a man named Fred, or Tim Burton's 'Charlie and The Chocolate Factory', 'gay' Spongebob cartoons or Fox News. That's my point. Without the evidence, we don't know.
My 'misunderstanding', (as I've stated a number of times) is with the following:
1. Why JP gives no case evidence yet reaches a conclusion about Minassian?
and
2. What he means by 'he was angry at God'?
Neither are 'clear' or 'objective' to my mind. Certainly nowhere near enough to address a recent mass killing about which there is little evidence/background available.
geetee: in the same way that a lot of time is being invested in trying to understand the process of radicalisation among Muslims.
Not at all the same way. Unless you think 'a lot of time invested in trying to understand' = proclaiming that a Muslim van driver killed people 'because he was angry at God?' How, without clear and objective evidence, is that remotely 'trying to understand' what and/or who motivated a killer to do what he did? Whether he was a Muslim or a Misogynist, Misandrist or Meninist, a thotough investigative process and profiling needs to be conducted before we just say 'oh, he was a lonely man, just provide him with a wife and this will go away'
If another (man?) mows down people in a van we should just save public funds (and the questions of the victims and their families) by sacking the criminal investigation team? Instead deferring to the 'prophet' Jordan Peterson who will sternly proclaim that the only thing we need know is the killer (being a young man) was 'angry at God' (interpretation unclear) for his lack of success with the ladies (poor social skills?) and therefore we all need more monogamy? Via a thorough criminal investigation of the motives/background there may be uncovered other radicalised individuals stating that they are waiting their turn to 'punish' random innocents.
*Sorry jimjam, but your powers are again in question (and beyond my good-natured gif-teasing at this point) since I just read back you there accused me aforethought of the following mind-crime:
"wanting Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says'
Congratulations, you just used (even over-egged) a version of the same dishonest debate-crippling tactic that I've seen seen used by Kathy Newman and Fox News anchors, among many. Pretty sure I saw Peterson try it on Matt Dillahunty in their recent debate (where I also learned from The Self-Fulfilling Prophessor that I'm neither an 'atheist' or 'Humanist' otherwise I'd be out murdering, raping and building something called a 'gulag').
Mind-reading is one thing, but when it lapses into making baseless accusations to impute poor character upon our STW peers it might be time to have a word with self, preferably over the ironing. The fact that you are 180 degrees wrong might be something to take into account to help iron the bigger creases. Where did it even come from? Anyway, I'm agreeable enough to accept an honest apology, but I won't accept shitty and utterly baseless accusations. Keep it civil eh? Or even lighthearted
Enough of that, I thankfully found some thoughtful and comedic relief on the subject of the Great Prophessor. Sharesies:
I haven't worked for 16 years, Madame seems happy with the arrangement, I'm not complaining. Junior has left home so I could go back to work if I felt like it now but... . She's a teacher, one of the rare jobs where pay is truly equal in the early years but once teachers reach the age where some are selected as heads of department or headmasters, or inspectors or go on to senior posts in administration men start to dominate. There are zero women in the highest echelons of the education system Madame is a part of.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
geetee1972 wrote,
But I’m not sure I fully understand your point.
OK, you wrote, "but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40" and what I'm suggesting is that it doesn't. Rather, that the bias could be present earlier, but lost in the statistics because of the relatively small number of senior managers. It wouldn't be surprising for the bias to become obvious as you reach an age group where there are more senior managers.
</div>
Malvern -
that's a long and considered post and there's not malice in whar you're saying, you're simply engaging in a debate. I just wanted to acknowledge that and say I respect it.
I'll be hoest and confess I'm really not sure what we're now trying to resolve as a difference of opinion.
If JP genuinely thinks he can explain exactly why this chap Minassian did what he did, then I think he's wrong to make that assertion. He can speculate at most and that's it.
But I think that's what he was doing - I think he has developed an idea about the process of radicalisation that Minassian clearly underwent (though not religious radicalisation but radicalisation nevertheless) and is offering into the general discourse for consideration.
It looked like people were deriding him for doing this; as if the ideas he's presenting are preposterous. Clearly they aren't preposterous because Minassian did what he did and there is innevitably some degree of explanation that runs the gamut of cause and effect.
Where I think he failed in commiunicating to the masses was to offer this explanation at too abstract a level that meant he lost people and they concluded he must be crazy.
Rather, that the bias could be present earlier, but lost in the statistics because of the relatively small number of senior managers.
But it's not present, or at least, it's not evidenced by what men and women earn in the period up tot he age of 40 - women and men earn the same regardless of their roles in a period spanning at least 20 years - a period where you are still being promoted and therefore seeing your earnings potential increase.
You have to keep in mind that the gender pay gap ONLY exists when you compare the earnings of all men and all women in full time roles (when you compare part time roles, men earn less than women). Therefore, if there is a gap, it is ONLY explained by the fact that for some unknown reason (the reason we are debating here), by the fact that women tend to occupy less well paid jobs than men beyond the age of 40.
Keep in mind that the difference is still relatively small - 14% is significant, but not a massive gap. It could be explained by a small number of relatively very highly paid executives, which we know are predominantly ocupied by men and which could account for a lot of the gap (because these are averages we're dealing with).
the question then becomes, what accounts for the fact that there are more men than women in these very small number of incredibly highly paid roles; I've offered the explanation above as being at least partly explained by choice. Bias is also very likely part of the explanation as well but it's not all of it - why then would these companies promote women up to a point but then not any further?
too abstract a level
Not providing any facts and making false statements is not abstract it's bullshit.
Anyhow, GT, how do you explain the absence of women at the highest levels of Madame's profession when there are more women in the profession, the women are better qualified and the age of men at those highest levels means that their children have left home so child bearing is not an issue? It's sexism simple as.
Edit and you persist in ignoring ther fact there is a difference below 40 but that it is smaller. 2.9% someone quoted above.
In the US women hold only 2.5% of the 1500 best paid corporate jobs in the country.
In France women hold only 11% of the best jobs in the teaching profession despite being more numerous. And that in a country with a disparity of only 10% between male and female average saleries (it's 15% for the OCDE)
Malvern Rider
*Sorry jimjam, but your powers are again in question (and beyond my good-natured gif-teasing at this point) since I just read back you there accused me aforethought of the following mind-crime:
“wanting Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says’
Congratulations, you just used (even over-egged) a version of the same dishonest debate-crippling tactic that I’ve seen seen used by Kathy Newman and Fox News anchors, among many. Pretty sure I saw Peterson try it on Matt Dillahunty in their recent debate (where I also learned from The Self-Fulfilling Prophessor that I’m neither an ‘atheist’ or ‘Humanist’ otherwise I’d be out murdering, raping and building something called a ‘gulag’).
Mind-reading is one thing, but when it lapses into making baseless accusations to impute poor character upon our STW peers it might be time to have a word with self, preferably over the ironing. The fact that you are 180 degrees wrong might be something to take into account to help iron the bigger creases. Where did it even come from? Anyway, I’m agreeable enough to accept an honest apology, but I won’t accept shitty and utterly baseless accusations. Keep it civil eh? Or even lighthearted
Let me try to address all of your points and explain my confusion. It's clear that you find Peterson's comments on the attack to be ill informed, ill judged and seemingly baseless, or at best complete speculation. You've asked Geetee about this directly at least six times. Now I'm guessing you're not going to participate in the upcoming Reddit ama with Peterson, but you could email him or use the [letter] function on his sub reddit and there's a very real chance that he'll reply. It appears to be something he does pretty regularly.
When I've tried to answer your query positing why I think Peterson might have said what he said you've dismissed it and mocked me for being psychic. Any answer Geetee gives can just be attributed to "psychic powers" too and thus easily dismissed as well so why insist on an answer from one specific individual and demand it multiple times?
With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson's opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides. If you genuinely want to know Peterson's motivations ask Peterson. If you want to know Geetee's so badly then be upfront as to why you specifically want his interpretation as opposed to anyone else and I'll certainly apologise.
Anyhow, GT, how do you explain the absence of women at the highest levels of Madame’s profession when there are more women in the profession,
Well it's either personal choice or it's bias. You can't say for sure which it is. From a data sufficiency perspective you don't have enough data to draw a conclusion either way. I personally think it;s very unlikely to be discrimination in a profession that has as many qualified female candidates as you suggest, and a highly unionised work force, it's very unlikely that discrimination accounts for anything other than a small percentage of the vairance. I agree it will be a factor, but I cannot believe it's much of one.
Edit and you persist in ignoring ther fact there is a difference below 40 but that it is smaller. 2.9% someone quoted above.
I'm not ignoring it. I've presented an alternative data set also from the ONS that shoes something different. I've also said I've asked the ONS for an explanation but haven't had one and offered by own suggestion that it might be to do with over time pay.
But let's consider the possibility that it's 2.9%.
On the average salary of £27,000 a year that is a difference of £783. Not really much to get worked up about when you consider that in like for like roles, there is no pay discrimination. This is the result of personal choice.
You're ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women. The women in the same roles will tend to be better qualified but stuck in those roles due to the promotion of men over better female candidates.
Unions are part of the problem. They are male dominated.
geetee1972 wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
But it’s not present, or at least, it’s not evidenced by what men and women earn in the period up tot he age of 40
You were talking about representation in senior management, not earnings. Earnings aren't a good measurement of representation in senior management.
Essentially what you seem to be saying is that the representation gap in senior managers is only to be found in the age groups where most senior managers are to be found, and when you look at younger age groups where there are few senior managers, it's harder to find.
You’re ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women.
How do you even start to measure that assertion? I'm ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.
Earnings aren’t a good measurement of representation in senior management
Well they are to a degree; pay tends to rise with seniority so if you have fewer people from a particular group represented at seinor management and then you measure relative levels of pay, you'll find that the under represented groups are likely earn less.
I’m ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.
I think you can say that about everything Peterson says. Or everything he's said on the vids linked anyhow.
That's just a vague correlation; you can't use it to measure representation, since not all higher paid jobs are senior management.
In fact there is eveidence to support what I said:
That’s just a vague correlation; you can’t use it to measure representation, since not all higher paid jobs are senior management.
I agree, but then I'm still not sure what it is we don't agree on if anything?
There are slightly fewer women in high paid jobs than men and I'm all for creating a situation where the only factor that is responsible for this is personal choice. Multi-variate factor analysis shows us that only about 10% of the variance in pay between all men and all women is the result of bias so I would suggest we're more or less there.
I think you can say that about everything Peterson says.
Possibly, though he does tend to cite a heck of a lot of data when making his arguments.
With all this lobster comparisons surely the best way to stop the attacks against women by inadequate males shouldn't they just get a large number of elastic bands and put them over their hands?
Geetee wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
I agree, but then I’m still not sure what it is we don’t agree on if anything?
</div>
If in doubt, you could read the 2 posts where I explained it? You posted about how the difference in representation in senior management only becomes apparent after 40. I pointed out that most senior managers are over 40.
I personally think it;s very unlikely to be discrimination in a profession that has as many qualified female candidates as you suggest
This statement shows why you will never get it/
And yours shows why you also don’t get it.