Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by katrinamo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

katrinamo

> Same goes for the wage gap. We know there is no gap.

I'm curious how you've come to this conclusion considering the preponderance of studies that say otherwise.

This article by the Washington Post examines a few claims regarding the wage gap if you are interested:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/women-...

View on HN

> The median salary for women working full-time is about 80 percent of men’s.

I don't need to read any further because I've read it all before. Women tend do different jobs to men. Easier, safer, less responsibility and less stress. That's not a wage gap, it's just a different choice of career. Which makes the next statement downright offensive:

> That gap, put in other terms, means women are working for free 10 weeks a year.

I suggest you go back and read further on since "Women choose lower-paying jobs" is the very first claim that they refute

But that doesn't take into account responsibility or actual job done at all. Organisations only have a limited number of job titles and at higher levels people are not as expendable. They do their own job.

The only thing that does seem to explain a gap---but a much smaller gap---is that men are more likely to negotiate their salaries.

If this conspiracy theory would be true, companies would only hire women, because they are 20% cheaper. Why is this not happening?

People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.

> People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.

People don't have to respond, trying to dodge the question with an appeal to authority proves my point just fine.

Your "highly researched" article doesn't deal with responsibility and seniority(mainly because there is no data for that) and makes funny claims such as "two very similar occupations, janitors (mostly men) and housekeepers (mostly women).", that's the equivalent of me saying "Worpdress development is similar to Enterprise Java Development" and for some reason one pays an order of magnitude more.

You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. It's when a covert organization covers up a malicious act. You're just using inflated language to describe what's ultimately just a mistaken argument.

If my argument is "mistaken", why are you focusing on the language that I used instead of just disproving my argument?

I would also be interested that if the gender wage gap is real and it is as believers describe it, how would you explain it without going into conspiracy land.

Because your arguments are probably correct. I never claimed otherwise. I took issue with your language. You're contributing to the polarization by using unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate language. That's the problem.

I'm going by this definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire

Claiming that across the US women get paid 20% less than men, for doing exactly the same work with exactly the same qualifications with everything aside from genitals being equal is not a conspiracy theory in your opinion? Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory?

Even if I grant you that I used harsh language, I take issue with your priorities, I would priorities truth over political correctness.

> Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory?

No. It's just a false claim. False claims aren't conspiracy theories.

> I would priorities truth over political correctness.

It's prioritize*, and prioritization only matters when there's a tradeoff. I'm not sacrificing truth to point out your mistake.

> False claims aren't conspiracy theories.

Are you saying that conspiracy theories are all true?

> I'm not sacrificing truth to point out your mistake.

You are wasting 100% of your effort on arguing semantics instead of engaging with my actual argument, sounds like a tradeoff to me. And no, it's not a mistake, don't know where you got that idea from.

> Are you saying that conspiracy theories are all true?

(A -/-> B) does not mean that (B -> !A)

When arguments devolve into basic logical errors, there's little hope in finding a resolution, which you're obviously not after anyway.

> You are wasting 100% of your effort on arguing semantics instead of engaging with my actual argument.

You're so intent on picking a fight that you don't realize I agreed with your actual argument above.

Happy trolling.

Please don't feed trolls on HN. That just makes this place worse, and the site guidelines ask you not to: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Instead, flag egregious comments, as explained there and at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's an abuse of this site, as stated in the site guidelines and illustrated by the tire fire below. Please don't create HN accounts to break the site rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle.

You seem to only take issue with one side of the "ideological battle", it's almost like you just banned the account because someone said something you didn't like.

If you would really believe what you say, you would not let "gender pay gap" and "women in tech" topics be posted at all.

The key word in your comment is 'seem'. It seems that way not because it's true—we've banned many accounts for abusing HN from the opposite ideological side—but because there's a cognitive bias in such perceptions. People with the opposite ideology have the opposite perception.

I've written about this a ton if anyone is interested: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com