Do people ever really change their minds on important topics?

[burge13]

Can you explain this one please? I am not too well educated on the figures so am interested to hear what you have to say.

It's simple

We have policy and legislation against such a thing. 2 People doing the same job need to be paid respectably

The 'pay gap' comes from choices. If anyone chooses to take a year off, of course their career will suffer somewhat. So when women choose to take a year off for maternity leave they have taken a year away from career progression. Some clowns seriously believe they should come back to work and jump to the front of the line for a promotion otherwise it's a 'pay gap'. Truly bizarre line of thinking but here we are, many believe it to be a real thing completely ignoring laws in place against it...

You won't hear genuinely career minded women say this is a real problem. Unless they're a do nothing politician hoping to gain votes, or a 'journalist' who gets paid per click.

 

[Frank Bunn]

People do change their mind on things as their life situation changes. Most people become more conservative as they get older.

But people overestimate their rationality. For example, the urge to appear consistent overrides the urge to consider arguments and evidence impartially - and hence change their minds on important topics. This happens with Bigfooty posters, scientists and politicians. The more intelligent the individual the greater the ability to rationalise to an already held view, especially when their livelihood depends on not changing their position.

 

[Scotland]

Can you explain this one please? I am not too well educated on the figures so am interested to hear what you have to say.

The pay gap is a function of aggregate earnings of all men/women divided by the number of men/women working.

If 10 men make $1m then they make $100k each on average. If 10 women work and make $800k they make $800k each on average. $80k is 20% less than $100k therefore there's a 20% gender pay gap.

A lot of people interpret this as 'Women make 20% less than men! You can't pay a woman less than a man for the same work! Sexism! Boooo!' which is nonsense. It's a lot more nuanced than that. Once people can accept that women aren't actually paid less than men for the same work then they are in a position to discuss the issue at the adults table.

 

[Cruyff14]

Sometimes yes, but there are still those who are beyond help. There are some people so thoroughly brainwashed with a particular point of view or ideology that they can't be reasoned with. The gender wage gap is probably the best example of this I've ever come across. There are still people who actually believe this s**t is real (even some males) when you hold the evidence right up in front of them. Veganism is another good example, there's some really interesting debates between carnivores and vegans that happen at vegan protests, that I've been watching on youtube. You can see how these vegans have been so brainwashed that they cant think rationally anymore. Given that there are a tonne of ex vegans on youtube, mostly young women, whose entire channel was about promoting veganism before they did a 180 and started talking about how damaging it is. So yes, that's one definite example I've come across time and time again where people change their mind. Then there are flat earthers...

Although on the positive side, infant circumcision is something I've seen many people change their mind about (it's still a thing in america) when they actually become educated on how harmful it is.

Vegans are definitely unusual.

Spot on about not being able to think rationally.

 

[craigos]

The pay gap is a function of aggregate earnings of all men/women divided by the number of men/women working.

If 10 men make $1m then they make $100k each on average. If 10 women work and make $800k they make $800k each on average. $80k is 20% less than $100k therefore there's a 20% gender pay gap.

A lot of people interpret this as 'Women make 20% less than men! You can't pay a woman less than a man for the same work! Sexism! Boooo!' which is nonsense. It's a lot more nuanced than that. Once people can accept that women aren't actually paid less than men for the same work then they are in a position to discuss the issue at the adults table.

My favourite is when they compare fields that are heavily populated by one gender. Forgetting how many years of education/training is required to be in that position.

For example: Tradies earn 80k per year (male dominated workforce). Childcare workers earn 50k per year (female dominated workforce).

 

[Jobe Watson]

Yes, they do.

For example, I used to be a **** man but now I'm an ass man.

 

[Scotland]

My favourite is when they compare fields that are heavily populated by one gender. Forgetting how many years of education/training is required to be in that position.

For example: Tradies earn 80k per year (male dominated workforce). Childcare workers earn 50k per year (female dominated workforce).

'Nurses only get $50k and lots of women are nurses'
'So do male nurses get paid more?'
'No, but'

Pay gaps are a function of intersectionality. My two previous bosses both got paid a lot more than me (+$50-100k, ballpark guess but I don't know exact figures for either because that's not my business) and one was female and one male. They got paid more than me because they were 10 years older and in more senior positions. If you wanted to analyse them further they are the same age, same race, equivalent qualifications, same level of experience but varied in exact roles, one Australian one foreign born but natural English speaker, neither religious, both married etc. In this particular example the biggest driver in potential pay gap would be the fact they work for two different companies. If I left and joined a different company for a 10% pay rise that has nothing to do with gender or race or any other category by which you can classify people. But it would put me 10% up on an equivalent female employee here.

It is true that the overall numbers are skewed by male and female dominated industries. Primary school teaching and nursing would be the two biggest industries that are female dominated and both aren't highly paid. This is an issue but it's not new and the reality is you don't get to choose the career path you go down and then decide how financially lucrative it should be. I know a girl that promotes women in industry and even with financial backing and company support the take up is very low. The percentage of women that want to become an electrician or boilermaker and work FIFO in the Pilbara is very low and that's fine. It's 2019, you can be whatever you want. But you don't have to be what someone else wants you to be.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

If you are talking to somebody who needs you to explain to them that the 'pay gap' is a myth, then you are wasting your time trying.

The education system is churning out braindead morons at a rate of knots.

 

[Scotland]

It's not a 'myth' as such but the churn out rate of braindead morons is alarming.

If there is a zombie apocalypse it might be tough choosing a side.

 

[getthefooty]

I get that the figures used in arguing the gender 'pay gap' are probably only indicative of women working in industries that on the whole, pay less. I understand perfectly that women and men get paid identically for similar roles, and I think the majority of people that approach this issue with some level of intelligence also understand that.

However - you're all wasting your breath if you think that is actually the real issue at play. It's not 1850 - we don't need to argue for e.g., a male associate at a law firm to be paid the same as a female associate at a law firm, all other things being equal.

The real issue is that particularly in some of the more stale corporate cultures, there is still a fair bit of sexism and an unconscious bias towards hiring men in more senior positions. I think you'll find that the figures (although misrepresented) are usually only brought up to try and ignite the issue.

The discussion around paid parental leave is central to that. I disagree heavily with the earlier poster who said it was the woman's 'choice' to take time off to have a kid, and it's not unreasonable to penalise her for that choice when she returns to work. The reality is that 99.4% of government paid parental leave is taken by the mother, and that is because, shock horror, there is a person growing inside of her. It's entirely unreasonable to make someone effectively 'choose' between their career and having a kid - again, it's not 1850, and society should be a bit more reasonable these days. Men can have a kid and not face the same 'choice'.

 

[Scotland]

The discussion around paid parental leave is central to that. I disagree heavily with the earlier poster who said it was the woman's 'choice' to take time off to have a kid, and it's not unreasonable to penalise her for that choice when she returns to work. The reality is that 99.4% of government paid parental leave is taken by the mother, and that is because, shock horror, there is a person growing inside of her. It's entirely unreasonable to make someone effectively 'choose' between their career and having a kid - again, it's not 1850, and society should be a bit more reasonable these days. Men can have a kid and not face the same 'choice'.

Why is a 1850 a reference point? We're not panning for gold in Bendigo.

The language chosen in your post gives away on which side of the fence you sit. Women aren't "penalised" for having children. No one goes to a job interview and is told "Well the role has a salary on offer of $100k but I can see here you have 3 children so 3 deductions at $10k each that's a package of $70k for you". Expecting to take say 5 years off work in a 10 year period and be paid the same as someone who has spent all of those 10 years working is complete entitlement.

Only women can have children. Sorry Stan/Loretta, that's biology. A man cannot carry a child, or breast feed, or any of that stuff. But he can work and provide for wife and child, and he can stay home and look after child while wife works - just spoke to a male friend of mine an hour ago who is doing exactly that right now. I know people with a stay at home parent, an arrangement where each parent stays at home some of the time, an arrangement where both parents work and the kids go to day care or to Nanna's etc. There are plenty of ways to raise a family. If you are unhappy with your family arrangement take it up with your family. It's not a failure of a progressive society if the rest of the population carry on around you.

The other good thing about choice is that it determines consequence. If you don't want your career impacted by having kids, you could always, you know, not have kids. But people have a biological urge and a desire to breed so they keep doing it and that's great. And in doing so there are consequences and choices that need to be made about how to raise them and how to balance careers. Individual/personal choice and individual/personal consequence isn't that hard, is it?

As an aside I have a friend that is a structural engineer. Decided on that path later in life than most and studied in his late 20s and early 30s then entered the workforce as a graduate. Should he be paid at the same rate as 32 year olds that have been working for 10 years?

 

[The King!]

ive changed my mind on important topics over time, not really from an immediate discussion though, too easy to get caught up in winning the discussion

 

[getthefooty]

Why is a 1850 a reference point? We're not panning for gold in Bendigo.

1950 then. A time before now, basically.

The language chosen in your post gives away on which side of the fence you sit.

And this statement gives away that you think it's a battle. It's not 'men v women' or 'gender pay gap v no gender pay gap'. That's a very poor characterisation of the debate.

My point is this: there is probably no gender pay gap, at least in the sense of what men and women in similar roles are earning. But there is no point in becoming all angry and riled up when someone (usually a woman) suggests there is. What does it achieve? Men have at least of as much of a responsibility to promote equality in the workplace, and we aren't there yet.

If a woman says 'you know, we earn on average less than you, have a look at these figures', perhaps she is not doing the overall cause of equality any favours. But we have a choice here. Instead of saying 'no you don't!!!! what are you talking about! I hate it when people are brain dead morons!' we should be saying 'I recognise that there is still exists fundamental gender bias in the workplace. I don't think it necessarily translates to women being paid less for similar roles, but as a man I am on your side and want to try and eliminate sexism.' Yes I'm exaggerating and it's a bit corny etc, but I think you get my drift.

Women aren't "penalised" for having children. No one goes to a job interview and is told "Well the role has a salary on offer of $100k but I can see here you have 3 children so 3 deductions at $10k each that's a package of $70k for you". Expecting to take say 5 years off work in a 10 year period and be paid the same as someone who has spent all of those 10 years working is complete entitlement.

I wasn't talking about someone taking 5 years off work in a 10 year period. That would evidence a clear intent on their behalf that they don't really give a s**t about their career, and are more focused on their family, or other pursuits. More power to them, but as you say, they can't expect to be jumping up the corporate ladder. That is an entirely separate debate to the pay gap. It's like someone travelling for 4 years and expecting to jump back in where they left off.

The poster above was talking specifically about a woman taking 'a year' off. When you consider that the minimum paid parental leave entitlement is almost half a working year, it's really a pretty big call to state they should 'expect to suffer'.

Only women can have children. Sorry Stan/Loretta, that's biology. A man cannot carry a child, or breast feed, or any of that stuff. But he can work and provide for wife and child, and he can stay home and look after child while wife works - just spoke to a male friend of mine an hour ago who is doing exactly that right now. I know people with a stay at home parent, an arrangement where each parent stays at home some of the time, an arrangement where both parents work and the kids go to day care or to Nanna's etc. There are plenty of ways to raise a family. If you are unhappy with your family arrangement take it up with your family. It's not a failure of a progressive society if the rest of the population carry on around you.

I don't disagree with any of this, in fact I agree wholeheartedly.

The other good thing about choice is that it determines consequence. If you don't want your career impacted by having kids, you could always, you know, not have kids. But people have a biological urge and a desire to breed so they keep doing it and that's great. And in doing so there are consequences and choices that need to be made about how to raise them and how to balance careers. Individual/personal choice and individual/personal consequence isn't that hard, is it?

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. I don't, however, think there should be such a clear demarcation drawn between 'having a family' and 'choosing your career'. In a nutshell - your family and your career are (generally speaking) probably the two biggest legacies you are going to leave on this earth. As a society we should be doing all we can to ensure we can have both. I realise that sometimes there a tough decisions to be made, but lets try and minimise those tough decisions, rather than take the hard line and simply say 'well, you chose to have kids, so it's now harder for you to get a promotion'. That is BS. The two choices are not mutually exclusive.

Anyway, we've gone off track. My central point relates to sexism in the workplace. Maybe it's because I see it almost every day - but I still feel like we have a long way to go.

And on a slightly interrelated point - is there any real reason why most nurses are women and most CEOs are men, apart from the historical tendencies of those professions? Why shouldn't we strive to make the split 50/50 in both? I see absolutely no reason why men would be just equipped to do nursing, and women just as equipped to be CEOs. Unless we are suggesting that women are inherently less driven, motivated and talented than men?

 

[its free real estate]

And on a slightly interrelated point - is there any real reason why most nurses are women and most CEOs are men, apart from the historical tendencies of those professions? Why shouldn't we strive to make the split 50/50 in both? I see absolutely no reason why men would be just equipped to do nursing, and women just as equipped to be CEOs. Unless we are suggesting that women are inherently less driven, motivated and talented than men?

There’s more at stake for men. Women have an intrinsic value, the ability to carry a baby to term and give birth. Men have an intrinsic near-zero worth. Men have to make themselves worthy to even pass in the desirability stakes, women don’t.

 

[craigos]

If a woman says 'you know, we earn on average less than you, have a look at these figures', perhaps she is not doing the overall cause of equality any favours. But we have a choice here. Instead of saying 'no you don't!!!! what are you talking about! I hate it when people are brain dead morons!' we should be saying 'I recognise that there is still exists fundamental gender bias in the workplace. I don't think it necessarily translates to women being paid less for similar roles, but as a man I am on your side and want to try and eliminate sexism.' Yes I'm exaggerating and it's a bit corny etc, but I think you get my drift.

This legitimately made me cringe.

 

[woota]

If a woman says 'you know, we earn on average less than you, have a look at these figures', perhaps she is not doing the overall cause of equality any favours. But we have a choice here. Instead of saying 'no you don't!!!! what are you talking about! I hate it when people are brain dead morons!' we should be saying 'I recognise that there is still exists fundamental gender bias in the workplace. I don't think it necessarily translates to women being paid less for similar roles, but as a man I am on your side and want to try and eliminate sexism.' Yes I'm exaggerating and it's a bit corny etc, but I think you get my drift.

It would be kind of forgivable for a woman to say something like this, but it's absolutely cringeworthy when a man says it. You sound like a well-trained male feminist.

And on a slightly interrelated point - is there any real reason why most nurses are women and most CEOs are men, apart from the historical tendencies of those professions? Why shouldn't we strive to make the split 50/50 in both? I see absolutely no reason why men would be just equipped to do nursing, and women just as equipped to be CEOs. Unless we are suggesting that women are inherently less driven, motivated and talented than men?

Yes, there's a real reason why some occupations are overwhelmingly male-dominated and others are overwhelmingly female-dominated – women and men are physiologically different. Their brains are different, their hormonal profile is different, their lived experiences are different, and their interests tend to be different. As a result of those ineradicable differences, men and women are better suited to different tasks and subsequently, they gravitate to different occupations based on their interest and ability. It's probably difficult for a male feminist to understand why 99% of technicians and mechanics are men, while 99% of childcare workers are women. The fact that I have to explain this to you is mind blowing to me. I mean how all of this is not completely self-evident to you is astonishing.

 

[getthefooty]

It would be kind of forgivable for a woman to say something like this, but it's absolutely cringeworthy when a man says it. You sound like a well-trained male feminist.

Meh. You might call it cringeworthy, I call it maturity. I ******* hate misogyny, and want to eliminate sexism, which I still think is rampant. If that makes me a feminist, then I'm a feminist and proud about it. I really do not care in the slightest if you think that is 'cringeworthy'.

Yes, there's a real reason why some occupations are overwhelmingly male-dominated and others are overwhelmingly female-dominated – women and men are physiologically different. Their brains are different, their hormonal profile is different, their lived experiences are different, and their interests tend to be different. As a result of those ineradicable differences, men and women are better suited to different tasks and subsequently, they gravitate to different occupations based on their interest and ability. It's probably difficult for a male feminist to understand why 99% of technicians and mechanics are men, while 99% of childcare workers are women. The fact that I have to explain this to you is mind blowing to me. I mean how all of this is not completely self-evident to you is astonishing.

Lol. I don't remember bringing technicians and mechanics into it? No s**t mate, some professions are more suited to a particular sex. Did you see me arguing that building sites around the country should be more filled with women? No, because men are stronger, and therefore we'd be running an inefficient economy if we tried to even things up there. I was talking solely about nursing and top level executive positions. Can you please explain why the inherent gendered traits you talk about make nursing more suited to women and being a CEO more suited to men?

The fact men and women bring something different to the table is precisely the reason we need professions (if you can call being an executive a 'profession' - it's really just being the top of the food chain in a bunch of different professions) like the two above to be more equal gender wise. We get a much healthier diversity of opinion and a far more rounded perspective.

 

[Gough]

If you had to define mansplaining it would be the numerous ways that the gender pay gap is explained away.

 

[perthblue]

If you had to define mansplaining it would be the numerous ways that the gender pay gap is explained away.

The notion of a gender pay gap is based on a dodgy interpretation of statistics. Nobody in this country is paid less because of whats between their legs.

Unironic use of 'mansplaining' is just a silencing tactic which the users of said word claim to hate.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I think people's opinions evolve, but real 180s on things of importance perhaps not so much. Most people probably have their base philosophicakl viewpoint more or less set, even if they can't articulate it, fairly early on - and then adjust for (unconciously) selfish reasons as they age. So, the former hippy is now the baby boomer banging on about the evils of drugs and how lazy poor people are.

 

[woota]

Lol. I don't remember bringing technicians and mechanics into it? No s**t mate, some professions are more suited to a particular sex. Did you see me arguing that building sites around the country should be more filled with women? No, because men are stronger, and therefore we'd be running an inefficient economy if we tried to even things up there. I was talking solely about nursing and top level executive positions. Can you please explain why the inherent gendered traits you talk about make nursing more suited to women and being a CEO more suited to men?

You are absolutely all over the map. First you say "no s**t mate" and concede that some professions are more suited to a particular sex, then go on to interrogate me about why women are more suited to nursing, which I already answered in the last post. You're literally asking me to repeat what I just said because you don't understand the concept. So here it is again, for the last time: women and men are different. That means mentally, physically and emotionally. When given the choice, they tend to gravitate towards different occupations based on their interest and ability. If you weren't a male feminist, you'd understand that one of the primary differences between the sexes is that women tend to be more interested in people, while men tend to be more interested in things. This explains much of why women gravitate towards nursing as an occupation and men gravitate towards occupations like technician and mechanic. What you can't seem to realize in all of this is that you are the one who is sexist, not me.

My argument in a nutshell = most nurses are women because men and women are fundamentally different and make different vocational choices based on their interests

Your argument in a nutshell = it's sexist that men and women have different interests! We should strive to make nursing a 50/50 split between the genders!

I advocate giving people a choice on what they do for a living. You're advocating taking that choice away, by increasing the proportion of men in a field that would massively displace huge numbers of women who would have otherwise occupied those positions, all because of your misguided and impractical notion of gender equality.

The fact men and women bring something different to the table is precisely the reason we need professions (if you can call being an executive a 'profession' - it's really just being the top of the food chain in a bunch of different professions) like the two above to be more equal gender wise. We get a much healthier diversity of opinion and a far more rounded perspective.

What I've written in this post and the last one will explain (to a non-feminist) a hefty chunk of the reason behind why there are far more male CEOs than female CEOs. It gets a bit more complicated than that but based on your inability to accept the reality of what I've already said, it would be futile for me to delve into that in more detail.

 

[Silent Alarm]

I generally just see people going from ignorance to populist opinions.

Ie growing up with a house that gets their news from Channel 7 to turning 18 and getting it from Tom Tilley on Triple J's Hack or The Project.

Popular causes are usually stuff like gay marriage, pill testing, don't kill sharks.

Generally those people get into entry-level outrage like 'oh my god they killed civilians in Afghanistan!' or 'wow, they're listening to us through our phones?' But then won't get peeved when they realise their Dan Murphy's card is just a tool for big business to track your spending routines and to alter the market based on it – and by extension, continue their plight of upping underemployment and deforestation.

These are the sort of people who shop at Cotton On and see all the photos of little Africans with slogans like 'help us help them.' Despite the fact fast 'fashion' uses about 30 litres of water for a pair of jeans, lasts five washes, and is intended to be short-term aka landfill. They go to the counter and pay a dollar for a plastic bottle of water – because that dollar goes towards sick kids in Africa (and if you don't want to help sick people... who are children... who are... African! well, you're a piece of s**t) – completely overlooking the fact you're buying another single-use plastic...

If you get into it at 15/16 and end up going to the University of Melbourne or RMIT's art schools, you probably went from a Catholic School education to thinking Clementine Ford is awesome.

I don't see many people opening up to the notion of things. I'm not saying fully buying into hardcore alternative theory. But it seems rare for people to at least entertain ideas that undermine the way they've been brought up. They don't start realising how callous and evil most companies are, they rag on public transport and see their car as an extension of their utensil, they don't actually consider their pawn-placement in the world. They don't cringe when they tell you about their job as a 'marketing co-executive' for a 'non-profit that engages charitable effects of companies.' They still pay to go to the AFL and think $1350 a year to watch Fremantle is 'pretty good value, really.'

 

[JW Frogen]

No the Great Unwashed never change their minds.

Except when Frankenstein's monster is picking daisies in their cabbage fields, then they get all riled up and burn things down.

But they never learn anything.

 

[Engimal v3]

No the Great Unwashed never change their minds.

Except when Frankenstein's monster is picking daisies in their cabbage fields, then they get all riled up and burn things down.

But they never learn anything.

It's weird that you've been here since 2004 and yet I've never noticed you until yesterday, when you flooded BigFooty with your s**t takes

 

[perthblue]

It's weird that you've been here since 2004 and yet I've never noticed you until yesterday, when you flooded BigFooty with your s**t takes

he's been on GD before and is legitimately one of the worst posters I've seen. Nonsensical and nasty, without even being entertaining or interesting like bunsen burner or Craven Morehead.