Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:If you are so sure (Score 1) 261

So the question might be reversed, should everyone with the same job description be paid exactly the same, regardless of work output or experience?

This is a good question. All people inflate their own sense of worth. Workers who claim to work 80 hours a week are often making very different choices about how to manage their time as someone who claims to work 40. It's one half of the Dunning-Kruger effect (the other half being that people of high capability often underestimate the difficulty of what they do).

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb...

Now I'm not saying that you're exaggerating the amount of work you did in comparison to others (especially those tricksy women, amirite?), but it would be consistent with what we know about human nature and the actual data from the workplace of people who claim to work long hours. Studies have shown that the more hours people claim to work over 55, the more they're exaggerating how many hours they actually work. People who claim to work 75-80 hours a week are usually overestimating by at least 20 hours.

https://www.fastcompany.com/30...

Competence is a complicated thing masquerading as a simple thing. No, people who have the same job title as you shouldn't necessarily make the same amount of money. Your pay is based on performance reviews, training, proven competence and a whole slew of other inputs. The problem is, a lot of those so-called metrics have a built-in bias. And in a salaried workforce, those biases can really run rampant. That's why in countries with healthier, more dynamic economies, you will see pay based on seemingly arbitrary measures like job title and seniority. This was an innovation of the labor movement and led to the most productive workforces in the world.

http://www.epi.org/publication...

I have no doubt that you're a competent, hard-working guy. That's my built-in bias because I like you, Ol Olsoc. A lot of times, we find agreement around here. We have things in common. If I were overseeing a performance review of you, I'd probably be predisposed to rate you highly. I'd certainly be predisposed to rate you more highly than the woman who's been a bitch to me every since I made that joke about the one-eared elephant at Miller's retirement party.

Now, get the picture?

Comment Re: And the other end of the deal? (Score 1) 261

Sure. Katie Ledecki got gold for swimming 800m about 15s slower than Connor Jaeger did for swimming 800m on the way to 1500m for mere silver. Still think there isn't something inherently different about women, or was Ledecki just sandbagging the way to the world record?

That doesn't answer my question: Do you think Katie Ledecki didn't work as hard as Connor Jaeger? Was she less productive (remember, the "product" is gold medals)?

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 500

You are a dipshit ,you cited another source. "Bush White House has resulted in restoration of 22 million of the missing messages" Can you read ?

The trick is that you have to read more than just the headline.

"An investigation into e-mails that seemed to have disappeared from the Bush White House has resulted in restoration of 22 million of the missing messages and a deal to uncover what could be millions of other e-mails that allegedly fell through cracks in the archiving system, two nonprofit groups said Monday.
However, an untold number of official e-mails from President George W. Bush's era will probably never be recovered because it would be extremely costly to do so, lawyers involved in lawsuits brought by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said.
"While we have not gotten every e-mail, some major gaps have been filled," said Meredith Fuchs, an attorney for the National Security Archive.
"

Comment Re:And the other end of the deal? (Score 1) 261

It is a choice to have children and the full consequences of doing so aren't a secret.

Yes, but men tend to get a small boost in earnings when they become fathers, and women tend to be penalised fairly heavily. It's not a choice to be the gender that gets penalised.

It is a choice to listen to people who try to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own future.

That's not how child psychology works. Children are not rational beings with all the facts and the ability to evaluate them as an adult would. That's why most religions focus on teaching their ideas to children, before they become adults and are better able to reject extremely improbable stories about the supernatural.

Comment Re:You forget that (Score 1) 261

I think you have to understand what the mental state of people contemplating suicide is like. They tend not to research it too heavily, in fact often it's a hasty decision. Men tend to have higher gun ownership and access to guns too. I was going to suggest that one way to help men would be more gun control, but that's another powder keg that will only distract people. There are other gendered issues too, like women wanting to not mutilate their corpses by jumping or shooting themselves, which is quite common in many cultures (e.g. Japanese women would use a different suicide method to men for that reason), but they tend to affect women. Well, I suppose you could argue the toxic masculine idea of taking everything to the limit, maximum available force is a factor.

I don't have all the answers, I'm just saying that the claim that men are more prone to suicide is wrong, and focusing on that isn't really helpful, especially when the focus is on blaming women.

Comment Re:You forget that (Score 1) 261

You are looking at the wrong stats to support the claim, i.e. that men generally do worse in legal custody battles. It's not the percentage of time that the child lives with the father that matters, it's the percentage of time when both parents want custody and the father doesn't get it that matters. Otherwise you are including all the fathers who didn't want their children to live with them for any number of reasons.

Here's a page summarising the stats from your source, Macooby & Mnookin, and others: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Trend: "In 1970, 2.8 million single mothers had custody of their children. By 1994 the figure had almost tripled. The number of fathers with sole custody practically quadrupled during that same time period."

So actually, between 1970 and 1994 men actually gained a greater percentage of custody than women. Unfortunately those are the most recent stats I could find, but it certainly seems that despite feminism being very strong during that time (remember that equality has actually declined in many areas since the highs of the 80s and early 90s, e.g. percentage of female engineering graduates) it wasn't negatively affecting men's ability to get custody.

Note also that only 4% of cases actually go to court, and only 1.5% are decided by the court. For most men, any bias in the legal system is of little concern because 98.5% of the time it isn't decided that way. Thus the often repeated claim that the law now favours women is actually making things worse for men by distracting from the more more common mediation route.

In SJW-world this would mean any contested cases should automatically go to the father right?

I can't speak for those people, whoever they are, and I certainly don't agree with that.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Working...