Forum:Facts proving Equal-Pay?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I've seen the article about female discrimination and how the pay gap exists, but I would like your critique on this. [Embed],8599,2015274,00.html

TL;DR A refutation.(possibly..) — Unsigned, by: Ayy, Lord of the lmao / talk / contribs 17:14, 13 November 2014‎

All fundamentally the same argument[edit]

Every one of those links that actually supports what you say° tends to have the same argument:

  1. There is some smallish statistical variation in the work done by men and women by one or more metrics
  2. That women are typically in lower paying jobs, and those jobs are less deserving of higher pay.

This runs into a couple major issues that have been documented.

  • First and foremost, there's a pretty well demonstrated effect that belief in gender stereotypes cause people to cheat women more often in financial negotiations. This is the most important because it highlights that gender bias can have a proven effect on salaries without the direct empirical support that simple observation provides.
  • To undermine point #2, I provide the following study: this one that shows an observed trend wherein jobs women collectively enter become viewed commonly as less valuable(and do get lower inflation adjusted pay), which means women can't just move into roles that pay better, because those roles become less highly paid, in a punishing irony.

These arguments are fundamentally predicated on neoclassical assumptions that tend to not reflect reality very well. Ikanreed (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Argumentum ad linkum[edit]

°This brings up something not covered on RationalWiki: a variation on the Gish Gallop favored by MRAs, wherein you post far too many contextless links, where the vast vast majority are opinion articles, many on personal blogs, to "debunk" something. It's impossible to refute all the links individually, and often many of them are tangentially related at best. This tactic has become increasingly common on the internet and we should probably include something about it on the Gish Gallop page. Needs a "witty" name though. Link Lump? Hyperlink Hurl? URL unleashing? Ikanreed (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen it used by MRAs at all, but rather by cranks whose vehicle of their crankery is pseudoscience (then again, Internet gender politics is still comparatively new, and not something I delve into often), in which case the contextless links are generally lists of studies or editorials (some of which are conveniently print-only). I've tended to call it a "crankypasta" (from copypasta) or a "stack drop" (invoking the image of a person coming up to you and dropping a massive stack of books and papers onto your desk in front of you, then standing there crossing their arms with a smug expression on their face. It appears impressive to the bystander, but says little about the contents of the stack). Noir LeSable (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's similar to the technique used by people who, when asked to back up their claim by argument, simply post to a link to some massive article/blog post or whatever with the implication that the answer to the question is somewhere in the mass of text not written by them.
It always seems either lazy or cowardly to me. If people are able to support their case with logical argument then they should be able to do using their own words and text. I've seen it in various areas. Can't think of a good name though.--Coffee (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting loads of YouTube links (or one really long one) is a similar tactic. "Watch two hours of these other people pontificating & then we'll talk." Ain't nobody got time for that. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting youtube links is certainly worse.--Coffee (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
For those who are interested, "Argumentum ad linkum" does get a handful of Goole hits generally making the same point about the style of argument. --Coffee (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, my ambitions are stirring, and I'm thinking of making an article, but I'm still working mostly on personal impressions of internet strangers. Do we have any "big name" offenders who love the tactic? Ikanreed (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's largely rambling internet cranks and forum/comment section/wiki trolls who prefer this route. Is there a way to look up large text posts/deletions on the wiki? Noir LeSable (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's weird how you can see something approximately twice a month, but have very little idea how to construct what it is objectively. I mean, it's fundamentally easy to understand: people who think quantity can replace quality, and don't value context to debates. Ikanreed (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Defence of argumentum ad linkum[edit]

Actually I posted it here FOR a refutation. I saw this copy pasta on the web I wanted to know your thoughts, not to say "I'm right, you're wrong". I'm sorry if it came off that way. Also does it remind you of creationist info dumps? Finding refutations for them was what led me here. Cheers for your thoughts. — Unsigned, by: Ayy, Lord of the lmao / talk / contribs 18:34, 13 November 2014‎

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Since you're posting all those links here en bloc and asking for "a refutation", it doesn't make any difference whether you agree with them or not; what you're asking for is still the same. I don't think anybody has the time or motivation to wade through those 37 links, analyse what they're each saying & what's right or wrong about it. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for showing me about the sign button. Also the reason why I posted this dump here is because I saw refutations for creationist and MRA claims. Also I thought it be a bad idea posting it on the talk page.--Ayy, Lord of the lmao (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, anyways, I presented as straightforward a scientific refutation of the central theme of those links as I could, without going overboard and spending several hours going past my read-and-understood feminism bookmarks. To refute all of them, individually, is still too much to ask regardless of whether you need it for another debate, are concern trolling, or are just interested. Ikanreed (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your time.--Ayy, Lord of the lmao (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In short, a bullshit assertion can be made with a single sentence. Refuting said claim typically requires a substantially higher word count. Refuting 30+ links (each containing multiple claims) is a task no sane person would embark upon. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)