Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | papsosouid's comments login

That makes no sense. People say that so that everyone will see they are bigots and ignore the rest of what they have to say? If people want to be ignored wouldn't they just not bother posting to begin with? The point of the phrase is to belittle people who dare to suggest that men are not some special privileged class of people who spend their time oppressing women.

-----


> People say that so that everyone will see they are bigots and ignore the rest of what they have to say?

You have it backwards. It's pointing out that the person you're talking to has said something that's quite silly. Fighting for women's rights doesn't mean you don't care about men, and it doesn't mean that men are universally better off.

-----


> Fighting for women's rights doesn't mean you don't care about men

How is ridiculing concern for men supposed to express that?

-----


Context is important, but your point that the phrase can be easily misinterpreted is well taken.

The phrase should certainly not be used if someone merely complains about a problem that men have. Rather, it is intended to be used when someone tries to derail a discussion about prejudice against women by talking about how hard it is for men.

Note that the comment I was replying to was in a thread about education, and it immediately started trying to shift the discussion to suicide rates and the judicial system.

-----


> "I was talking about apples, then he tried to derail the discussion by bringing up oranges"

>> "B-but... you were in a restaurant... choosing desert?"

-----


You're missing context. The phrase is used in instances like this:

Person A: "Women have it rough. Patriarchy."

Person B: "No, see, [bad thing happened to this guy one time], so there's no possible way there's systemic bias against women."

Person A: "Yeah, _what about teh menz?_"

Feminists deeply care about men's issues. But they won't tolerate using specific instances of things being bad for men as a means to deny that there is systemic bias against women.

-----


I think you're way off. The phrase could be used in such a way, but even in this thread the person to whom this insult was leveled against did not say "there's no possible way there's systemic bias against women" or deny anything about women or anything like it. The way you're using "context" is a hand-waving, straw person, red herring. You should check the context.

-----


I was speaking about the phrase in the abstract, first of all.

Second, mistercow discusses the context and the reasons it was said in this thread below, you should take it up with them.

-----


What, exactly, are these abstract phrases of which you speak? Does how the phrase actually gets used matter to you? Or do we all get to invent imaginary conversations for abstract phrases and lilly-white motivations for our (imaginary) protagonists? You accused someone of ignoring context but you're inventing it.

-----


I think the phrase is disrespectful in any context and all this talk of context and abstractness and strawpersons thereof are red herrings.

-----


I don't think I've ever seen it put so succinctly, but that is exactly the sentiment.

-----


If that's what you intended perhaps you should find a more respectful way of putting it

-----


That's exactly what he just said.

-----


Businesses do things that are unethical to gain a competitive advantage all the time. Constantly. Every day. The fact that none of them are exploiting this "wage gap" is pretty strong support for the fact that the gap isn't actually real.

-----


See my post to mike_ash. It's hard to say that it's "pretty strong support for the fact that the age gap isn't actually real" without also noting that there's a lack of confidence in female workers' performance (so they wouldn't be hired in the first place).

-----


But that is just an assumption, and a rather bold one at that. If there were evidence that there is a prevailing assumption that women are 18% less capable then you would have a point. But just making a baseless assertion like that doesn't work.

-----


If there is such assumption, it would be either correct or incorrect. If it is incorrect, there would be at least some businesses trying to challenge this assumption - it's pretty hard to imagine why in hundreds of years of doing business and pretty much every assumption in there about doing business being challenged nobody would ever think about trying to test this particular one. There are lot of businesses that would give everything for 18% chance over the competition - and among all crazy ideas some would definitely try this one and say "why don't we just hire only women and get 18% edge?" Once they did it, they'd discover they get the same output for 18% cheaper and would have considerable success. Heck, they'd go as far as pay 8% more than competitors to attract only the best and still have 10% edge! Once they had it somebody would think to ask how they did it and discover they did it by challenging this particular assumption and finding it wrong. So the assumption eventually would be widely known to be if not totally wrong than at least questionable and having very strong evidence against it. Has it ever happened? If not, then why not?

-----


Yes, the market is so huge someone would have tried this approach. You would at least expect a few case studies showing increased cost efficiency in mostly women work forces. That none exist, is pretty damning.

-----


Women are definitely assumed less capable, or at the very least, unhirable for some reason. See this link ("http://qz.com/103453/i-understood-gender-discrimination-afte...). I might not have a link to a study for you, but it's certainly not a baseless assertion.

-----


Yes, that is a baseless assertion. I saw that when it was posted. I even commented on it. About how my wife had the exact same experience in reverse. A single personal anecdote is entirely meaningless.

-----


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109

Happy? Besides, you've made quite a baseless assertion when assuming that there exist employers willing to exploit the fact that women are paid 18% less.

-----


No. Even if that were real instead of a link to a tabloid I wouldn't be happy, because that isn't relevant. We're not talking about leaders, we're talking about building a company with a massive advantage over the competition by hiring women as workers.

-----


Read my updated comment.

-----


http://www.privoxy.org/

It is really simple.

-----


Yeah, the "wage gap" myth has been debunked many times over, it really destroys someone's credibility when they pretend it exists.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-bigg...

-----


I'm not sure what about this chart suggests that the wage gap doesn't exist: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%....

-----


There were also words, not just pictures. Often times words that accompany pictures can provide useful information.

-----


I have read the words and they don't explain why the text contains the opposite information from the graph. I also followed the link to PayScale and found this page:

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap/job-di...

It shows that men make more than women in 11/12 common professions and women make more than men in 0/12. Again, this is the opposite of the text of your link (and of your assertion).

Did I miss something?

-----


>Did I miss something?

Yes. The image doesn't show the opposite information as the text. As the text explains, the average of all men's wages increases more than the average of all women's wages. The average of all men and all women's wages is not how you show there is a wage gap. The average of all women work fewer hours than the average of all men, and have less experience.

-----


The graph shows that for individual positions within a single profession, men make more than women. The PayScale page I linked to also shows the same thing.

The text of your link says that "the gender wage gap disappears for most positions". How is that not the opposite of the graph and the data?

-----


The answer is still "account for hours work and years experience" no matter how many times you ask.

-----


I just now realized that you didn't read the graph rayiner linked to or even the study you yourself linked to, so you're just replying with non sequiturs. It's clear that this thread is going nowhere.

For others who have made it this far down into the thread: the "study" that papsosouid linked to controls for years experience and also probably hours worked, but still concluded that there's a wage gap.

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap/women-...

-----


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/04/09...

"Of the 534 occupations listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women earn more than men in exactly seven professions. Together, these seven occupations account for about 1.5 million working women, or about 3 percent of the full-time female labor force. The remaining 97 percent of full-time working women work in occupations where they earn less than their male counterparts."

Property, real estate, and community association managers. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 60.6%; percentage of women in the occupation: 57.4%

Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 100.3%; percentage of women in the occupation: 87.0% (One of the seven occupations where women earn more than men.)

-----


Why would you respond to someone saying "you need to account for things like hours worked, experience, position, etc" with "if you don't account for things like hours worked and experience, we can mislead people into thinking there is a gap"?

-----


Occupation: Property, real estate, and community association managers. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 60.6%; percentage of women in the occupation: 57.4%

Occupation: Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 100.3%; percentage of women in the occupation: 87.0%

-----


Are you seriously asking me to copy+paste my last reply back to you? How many times do you hope to repeat the same comments, and what is the purpose of that?

-----


Are you seriously trying to imply that the majority of people doing a specific job, as identified by a criteria not related to the job, make significantly less than a minority doing the same job due to working conditions?

-----


I am saying you need to account for hours worked and years experience.

-----


This doesn't debunk the wage gap, only that the wage gap is not caused by differences in pay between men and women doing similar work in similar roles. The wage gap has always been structural: women tend to be prevalent in lower wage jobs or are penalized more for default expectations about raising children or domestic work. Also, men are more common the higher in company/corporate structures you go, so naturally women do not make as much because they are not as represented in those higher salary roles.

-----


>>> only that the wage gap is not caused by differences in pay between men and women doing similar work in similar roles.

That's pretty much what is common understanding of the wage gap. If you understand by "wage gap" that less paid positions paid less, it's meaningless. If you understand by it that women more often work in positions that pay less, then it's not a wage gap - it is a position gap or promotion gap or whatever else gap. So calling it "wage gap" is misleading, as the wage is not the variable that changes between men and women - the position on which they get the wage is.

-----


>That's pretty much what is common understanding of the wage gap

No it isn't. If that were the common understanding, then people would not say they are fighting for "equal pay for equal work". The very existence of the phrase "equal pay for equal work" demonstrates that people do believe (incorrectly) that women are paid less than men for the same work.

-----


Wait, I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that absence of "equal pay for equal work" is a common understanding of what the wage gap is. And that calling different pay for different work "wage gap" is wrong, even if it comes out statistically that more women have lower-paid jobs than men.

-----


Yes, it does debunk it. Wage has a specific meaning. If women are taking a different job, obviously they are earning a different wage, that is in no way a "wage gap". Calling someone working 80% of the hours and earning 80% of the pay a "wage gap" is completely absurd.

>Also, men are more common the higher in company/corporate structures you go

They are also more common the lower you go. Men are more common at both extremes, and ignoring the bottom part is a really common fallacy used to push a particular agenda.

-----


This seems like splitting hairs. There is wage disparity between men and women in general and there are reasons for that difference. Ultimately those reasons need to be discussed and addressed as it doesn't serve society to have so many of its members pigeonholed into low wage work (this extends beyond gender, of course)

-----


Not at all. We have constant, deliberate deception being used to influence policy and law. People overwhelmingly believe the lie that women get paid less for the same work, that would be a wage gap. Policy decisions are made based on that lie. Politicians now repeat that lie. This is a problem, and needs to be addressed. Pointing out the reality is how I am doing my part to try to address this problem. It is not splitting hairs.

-----


Almost every analysis I've ever read about the wage gap went beyond the pay difference to look at domestic work, child care, types of work available to men and women, number of men/women in a kind of work, etc.

> People overwhelmingly believe the lie that women get paid less for the same work, that would be a wage gap. Policy decisions are made based on that lie. Politicians now repeat that lie. This is a problem, and needs to be addressed.

Wouldn't addressing the lie include an acknowledgement of wage disparity outside of 'different pay for the same work'? Often I see this issue framed in terms of comparable work and work loads due to the difference in types of jobs and representation in certain fields.

-----


>Almost every analysis I've ever read about the wage gap went beyond the pay difference

I find those to be in the minority myself. And those are of course never presented by feminist proponents of the wage gap myth, as those demonstrate that it is a myth.

>Wouldn't addressing the lie include an acknowledgement of wage disparity

It isn't wage disparity, that is the point. It is job disparity. If you want to make a case that women aren't able to get the jobs they want due to sexism, feel free to do so. But don't expect me to do it for you simply because you made a totally unrelated claim.

-----


Well call it what you will, there is obviously some sort of gap. It seems a bit disingenuous to me to point out that a wage gap doesn't exist because women are payed the same as men but on average work lower paying jobs, or take time out for children.

Those things should make you question why women not men are expected to take time out of their career to raise children, why women on average end up in lower paying jobs.

Ultimately the effect is gap in average income between men and women. So yes you sort of are splitting hairs, while ignoring real systemic issues that affect everyone, not just women.

-----


>Those things should make you question why women not men are expected to take time out of their career to raise children, why women on average end up in lower paying jobs.

No, those things should make the feminists spouting this nonsense ask those questions. Instead, the continue to spew deliberately misleading nonsense, knowing that people are sympathetic to "women get paid less for the same work", but are much less sympathetic to "women choose to work fewer hours".

-----


So on what information do you base the assumption that women choose to work fewer hours? And are you denying that there is in fact an income gap for women?

Minorities also have an income gap and statistically speaking work fewer hours. Are you saying that's a choice too?

-----


You have now changed your argument from 'wage gap' to 'income gap'. Those two are not the same thing.

A 'wage gap' implies getting paid less for the same job. No good. An 'income gap' implies someone earns less than someone else. That seems perfectly acceptable.

-----


There are plenty of occupations where women are paid less for the same job. I'm perfectly happy to keep using the term wage gap.

I switched to the term income gap because others were arguing about the gap in aggregate.

-----


If - Men and women with the same employment histories get paid similar amounts - Women earn less, on average, because they work less - Some women get paid less than men for the same job

Does it not follow that men are equally impacted by the "wage gap".

And if so, how would that influence your usage of the term?

-----


Why are you asking me to make your argument for you? If you want to take a position on job choices and availability go right ahead, you don't need me to do it for you.

-----


I'm asking you to clarify your position.

You seem to acknowledge that an income gap exists for women. You also asserted that it was because they choose to work less. I'd like to know if there's anything to back up your assertions other than your opinion.

Does you opinion hold for other groups that have an income gap and on average work less? If so can you see how that would be problematic?

-----


Also, out of curiosity I looked through the first couple pages of Google results for "wage gap" and every single link I found makes the point that the gap depends on occupation and other factors.

Where exactly is this misinformation being spewed, I can't seem to find it? What I can seem to find is plenty of sites calling the wage gap a myth, and in fact when you start typing "wage gap" in Google the first suggestion is "wage gap myth." So in fact it seems the exact opposite of what you say is true.

-----


No, it really hasn't. You're suggesting that women actively seek out lower-paid, lower-status work. Just the other day there was an article on HN talking about a guy that was getting job applications rejected until he clarified his gender on his CV.

If you're a woman that runs into this discrimination, your only choices are to lower your standards for a job, and accept one that is lower paying, or to not work at all. All of a sudden the argument that women doing the same job get the same pay seems rather weak, because it's far from clear that women have the same opportunity to get the same job in the first place. All of a sudden, the lower remuneration of women is once again caused by discrimination, just not salary discrimination.

-----


The guy had put "married with kids" in a prominent location to imply a stable life and dependability. Now if you're trying to guess why a woman would do the same, you might think to yourself, 'well she must know this doesn't help her chances, but she's put it there anyway... ' - which spoils the experiment in terms what you can claim the results are indicative of.

-----


>You're suggesting that women actively seek out lower-paid, lower-status work.

All available evidence supports that notion. Women are more likely to value other things more than they value financial motives. I am also not suggesting that is the sole cause. Women work fewer hours on average, they avoid dangerous jobs, jobs with long and/or odd hours, and they are more likely to take time off which leads to them having on average less experience.

>If you're a woman that runs into this discrimination, your only choices are to lower your standards for a job, and accept one that is lower paying, or to not work at all.

Or to do the same thing the author did and put "Ms." on your resume if your name is ambiguous.

>because it's far from clear that women have the same opportunity to get the same job in the first place.

Hiring rates don't support your hypothesis.

-----


"All available evidence supports that notion."

Your citations for your assertions that feminists are liars and women like to be paid less are awfully thin.

-----


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+women+choose+lower+paying+jobs

-----


Whoops, I thought Hacker News' standards were generally higher than "whatever Google barfs up when I type in my prejudiced view point." But you're the one with the karma here.

-----


That doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of mythology that is widely agreed upon in feminist circles. If you expect insane conspiracy theory nonsense like "patriarchy" to actually be supported by evidence rather than accepted on faith, then you are not welcome in feminist discourse, plain and simple.

-----


I'm rather confused by your post. I've never seen the patriarchy described as a "conspiracy", or a willful choice by men to control women, but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women.

Regardless of the existence of the patriarchy as a phenomena - and there are many critics of the theory, from the right and the left -, it makes no sense to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

-----


I've never seen the patriarchy described as a "conspiracy"

Anti-feminists would tend to view it as a conspiracy, or no longer existing ("women can vote, so it's all OK now, right?"). Sadly this sort of attitude/meme does exist....

-----


>but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women.

What you described is a conspiracy. Of course feminists don't describe their own conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, they want them to appear legitimate.

-----


I disagree. This is necessary but not sufficient to describe a conspiracy. Conspiracies imply collusion, or some form of plan.

Patriarchy as it is commonly understood in feminist circles is more nuanced than your straw-man. It's bottom-up, not top-down. You'd have to stretch the definition of "conspiracy" awfully far to cover an emergent property of a set of principles and societal norms.

-----


Conspiracy usually means a deliberate attempt of a group to do something rather than something that occurs for systemic or institutional reasons.

Ultimately patriarchy as a social force and concept is totally provable has statistical and philosophical evidence that shows it exists. Every basic women's studies or feminist book goes over this to some extent.

-----


Institutions do not form spontaneously, and the "systems" you refer to were also created by humans. The notion that men created systems and institutions which oppress women, but it is totally not a conspiracy because they did it by accident is not well represented in feminist academia.

>totally provable has statistical and philosophical evidence that shows it exists.

Except that alternative explanations are dismissed. If the "evidence" supports many possible conclusions, then it is not proof of a single specific conclusion like "patriarchy".

-----


> Institutions do not form spontaneously, and the "systems" you refer to were also created by humans. The notion that men created systems and institutions which oppress women, but it is totally not a conspiracy because they did it by accident is not well represented in feminist academia.

It seems like you are saying that is there is indeed a real conspiracy of institutions created and/or controlled by men, in which case I totally agree. We have well documented cases, historically and in the present, of institutions and systems that are dominated by men.

> Except that alternative explanations are dismissed. If the "evidence" supports many possible conclusions, then it is not proof of a single specific conclusion like "patriarchy".

I've yet to see convincing alternative explanations. All of the evidence points to existence of patriarchy as a social institution.

-----


>It seems like you are saying that is there is indeed a real conspiracy of institutions created and/or controlled by men, in which case I totally agree.

It seems like you are deliberately choosing to respond with non-sequiturs and strawmen because you don't want to have an honest conversation.

>I've yet to see convincing alternative explanations. All of the evidence points to existence of patriarchy as a social institution.

Just as creationists view all evidence as pointing to the existence of god. If you start with a conclusion, and twist everything to suit that end, you can't reasonably expect people who didn't start with the same bias to agree with your conclusions.

-----


Do you really think societal structures that privilege men are a myth? Apart from being quite obvious to anyone who is not extremely biased, there are whole academic branches that study this. I'd say calling that "mythology" puts you into conspiracy theory territory.

-----


Simply put, if you say that the patriarchy causes X and not Y and I say that the patriarchy causes Y and not X there is no way to resolve the disagreement.

-----


There have been "whole academic branches" that studied all sorts of nonsense and quackery. That doesn't validate modern feminist mythology any more than it validated phrenology. Rather than resort to weasel words, if you want to take an opposing position than take it. Show me this male created oppression machine.

-----


> Do you really think societal structures that privilege men are a myth?

Nope. And neither are the societal structures that privilege women.

Western women have always been among the safest, most privileged human beings on the planet. Predictably, and unfortunately, modern western feminists never compare the plight of the average man with the plight of the average woman when determining who wins the Oppression Olympics; instead, they look jealously toward men at the top of society and declare that because women aren't a part of that, they're more oppressed.

And sadly, it gets more ridiculous than that. I've seen people on this forum actually say, with similar words:

Institutionalized misandry cannot exist, because most people at the top of society are men. Women don't have the institutional power to oppress men. Any oppression men face is a result of The Patriarchy.

Ignoring the fact that oppression can come from outside of congress (university policies, for example), those people are defining patriarchy to simply mean "Oppressive policies written by people with penises, even if feminists support those policies".

And that's what makes it dogma.

-----


Ignoring the fact that oppression can come from outside of congress (university policies, for example), those people are defining patriarchy to simply mean "Oppressive policies written by people with penises, even if feminists support those policies".

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think you'd be better served by engaging with a more nuanced and complex version of these views. What you describe here is caricature. And in all I think it says more about you than feminism.

A common refrain in feminist circles is that patriarchy hurts everyone. A good example is parental leave as it applies to men. Paternity leave in the US is absurdly bad, suggesting that we as a society do not value the time a father spends with his child. Along those lines, men are typically graded on a patronizingly terrible curve when it comes to childcare. And so on.

Note that these aren't just laws, but societal norms, especially the latter where people praise you for doing basic shit like picking up your kids from work or whatever. If you view patriarchy as an emergent property, then the idea that "laws written by men" are a sufficient description of the concept is just absurd. You could of course take the least coherent out of any group which espouses a belief and engage with that, but that's not an honest way to have a discussion.

So like I said maybe don't engage with the most ridiculous possible presentation of feminism.

-----


So, because some ideas are widely accepted in feminists theories (the patriarchy) must mean that there is nothing that feminists disagree about?!

That's like saying that because there is a significant amount of shared ideas in US politics (e.g.: "US Independence was a good thing"), that US politics is now some sort of group think where dissent is not allowed and everyone thinks the same!

-----


>must mean that there is nothing that feminists disagree about?!

Nobody made that claim, that is my point. Responding to strawmen is not productive, respond to the actual conversation.

-----


>I've had the opposite experience, where when people notice that I'm female, certain companies get excited for the chance to have a "token woman" on their team

My wife noticed that too. She has basically the exact opposite experience as the author. Her name is also gender neutral, but more commonly male. As soon as she added "Ms." she started getting interviews. Comments like "it will be so nice having another woman around here", and "we have too many men in the IT department and 99% of the applicants are just more men" are apparently normal, even from men.

-----


Summing up your wife's experience with the one in the article, perhaps what employers like the least is the ambiguity of getting a CV where they don't know if the applicant is male or female?

I do know I have felt somewhat embarrassed when I had to reply an email to people with a gender-neutral name. Although maybe that's because there are no such names in my country, so I find the situation odder than most people. But I can picture a HR person wondering about the gender of the applicant and just skipping to the next CV to avoid the uncomfortable moment, especially if there are many similar CVs to choose from.

-----


Interesting about there being no gender-neutral names. How does naming work where you're from (and where is that)?

-----


>This is true, but it should be noted that gender discrimination is fundamentally related to patriarchy and misogyny.

Making faith based statements like that and acting as though they are evidence based is not productive. There is no evidence to support feminist mythology surrounding their redefinition of patriarchy.

>In the US lack of "father's rights" is a red herring.

No it is not. A system that was equal would begin with shared custody as the default, and a case would need to be made to remove either parent's custody based on their being unfit. A system where men are required to spend considerable time and money fighting to get less custody than women get by default is not equal. The reason men have high success in getting custody when they pursue it is because they almost exclusively pursue it in cases where there is substantial evidence that the mother is grossly unfit. Have a man talk to a custody lawyer while you listen in. They will universally tell you not to bother pursuing custody unless you have proof the mother is an addict or has allowed another man to assault the children frequently. Using selection bias to dismiss valid concerns makes it appear as though you have a vested interest in maintaining inequality.

>This because the rates of rape for men overwhelmingly come from prisons and being incarcerated.

And those don't count because of what?

-----


> Making faith based statements like that and acting as though they are evidence based is not productive.

Cool; how about some evidence for your custody assertions?

> There is no evidence to support feminist mythology surrounding their redefinition of patriarchy.

Systemic sexism is widely documented. This ranges from pay gaps [1] to harsher views on overweight women vs men [2] to sexual assault [3]. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you objecting to appropriation of the word 'patriarchy'?

[1] http://www.oecd.org/social/family/LMF1.5%20Gender%20pay%20ga...

[2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F02610150910937916

[3] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF

> And those don't count because of what?

Read the next sentence. Male rape is predominantly a the parent isn't saying that male rape victims "don't count".

-----


>Systemic sexism is widely documented.

Oh?

>This ranges from pay gaps

Which are a deliberately misleading "problem" feminists like to complain about, but which don't actually exist.

>harsher views on overweight women vs men

Where? You mean personal preferences? Like how short men are viewed harsher than short women? That is not systemic.

>to sexual assault

Where the actual systemic problem is that the government deliberately misrepresents male rape victims by not counting "forced envelopment" as rape?

>Read the next sentence. Male rape is predominantly a the parent isn't saying that male rape victims "don't count".

You didn't make their point any clearer.

-----


I accidentally deleted a line when I was typing; I meant to write "Male rape is predominately a result of the way the United States does incarceration and needs to be discussed in that context; the parent isn't saying that male rape victims 'don't count' "

Also, you clearly didn't bother to glance over any of the data I provided. You probably should, especially about the extremely well documented gendered pay gap. Denying that such a gap exists when there are mountains of evidence to the contrary only makes you sound ignorant and chauvinistic.

I'd still like citations on the male custody and on this 'forced envelopment' business.

-----


Yes, I did see your "data". Comparing the average income of all men to the average income of all women does not establish a pay gap. The average of all women works fewer hours than the average of all men, work less demanding jobs, and has less experience. Comparisons of men and women with the same amount of experience, working the same hours, in the same job show there is no difference in pay.

I have no idea why you have such a hard time with the FBI rape stats, googling "forced envolpment" would get you what you want: http://www.good.is/posts/the-fbi-expands-its-definition-of-r...

-----


That is because official statistics use penetration as the definition of rape. "Forced envelopment" (women raping men) is not counted as rape.

-----


How is that even possible to have the exact same act be counted differently solely based on who is the aggressor?

-----


Dunno, ask the FBI.

-----


It has nothing to do with being dynamic, it is about names. The article insists that you need to be able to grep for the identifier, but you don't have the identifier. So you have to grep for the function you are in, find all the places it is called from, and then sort through all the functions passed into it as arguments. The function passed in as an argument is often an anonymous function, so it still won't have an identifier anyways. The entire concept is just plain nonsense.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: