Male Bio Students Underestimate Female Peers

[Bandersnatch]

Please do show me a study that shows that men and women get paid differently _ for the same work_.

I think you might be arguing against a straw man here, or recalling an argument with some rather misinformed opponent.

Gender pay gap takes into account the median wage across the economy. It reflects a range of biases in employment, including gender preference in filling high-paying (leadership) positions or being employed full time, or being promoted. But, it also includes preference for the female to take a break from a career to raise children, or educational choices - which reflect wider societal biases than just those occurring at the workplace, as well as actual legitimate lifestyle choices.
That's where the so-and-so many cents per dollar statistics come from. The data are available from government websites (or e.g. OECD's).

Pay gap for equal work can figure in there as a factor, but in your country it is illegal (as far as I understand the situation, it's covered by the 50-year old Equal Pay Act?). For a proof that this exists you shouldn't look at studies, but at occurrence of lawsuits that end up awarding damages (e.g.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/epa.cfm).

 

[WWGD]

we couldn't underestimate females because there was no female in our mechanical engineering department

I think you might be arguing against a straw man here, or recalling an argument with some rather misinformed opponent.

Gender pay gap takes into account the median wage across the economy. It reflects a range of biases in employment, including gender preference in filling high-paying (leadership) positions or being employed full time, or being promoted. But, it also includes preference for the female to take a break from a career to raise children, or educational choices - which reflect wider societal biases than just those occurring at the workplace, as well as actual legitimate lifestyle choices.
That's where the so-and-so many cents per dollar statistics come from. The data are available from government websites (or e.g. OECD's).

Pay gap for equal work can figure in there as a factor, but in your country it is illegal (as far as I understand the situation, it's covered by the 50-year old Equal Pay Act?). For a proof that this exists you shouldn't look at studies, but at occurrence of lawsuits that end up awarding damages (e.g.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/epa.cfm).

EDIT: But there is evidence that men tend to gravitate towards higher-paying jobs and are willing to take on more dangerous jobs and work longer--even to their detriment, as men's value in society is tied to their earning power . And there are many areas where women fare way better than men and biases against men that are rarely mentioned, e.g., longer sentence for the same crime, requirements to support children even after having DNA evidence showing the children are not theirs. So, while there are biases, I do not see how there are _systematic biases_ against women, as there are biases against men too. And the existence of lawsuits is a function of the political climate at the moment in which men are repeatedly demonized -- after a woman(1) is told almost daily that she is being exploited, she believes it, whether true or not . Notice how , while women are getting 60% of college degrees no one seems to care about that. You want to find real bias and _systematic_ , across-the-board mistreatment, you have race, but not gender, I don't think.

(1)Or member of any group that sees itself as a minority.

 

[Bandersnatch]

And the existence of lawsuits is a function of the political climate at the moment in which men are repeatedly demonized -- after a woman(1) is told almost daily that she is being exploited, she believes it, whether true or not .

That might be one of the reasons for the lawsuits in the 'no reasonable cause' rubric in the document linked to. However, there's almost 25 years of data on the EEOC website showing courts consistently finding merit in around couple hundred cases each year, and awarding benefits counted in millions of dollars.

 

[WWGD]

That might be one of the reasons for the lawsuits in the 'no reasonable cause' rubric in the document linked to. However, there's almost 25 years of data on the EEOC website showing courts consistently finding merit in around couple hundred cases each year, and awarding benefits counted in millions of dollars.

From what I read, if I understood correctly, the reasonable causes (cases with merit) were less than 100/year within the dataset, not
much within such a litigious society. And , even if there were merits to the case, what reason is there to believe that gender is not a confounding variable? How many lawsuits were filed by men for the same reason?

Just curious: are CEOs ignorant of this supposed difference in pay? If so, why don't they hire only women , have them do all the work at 77% of the cost and then pocket the difference? Why isn't there then a bias against hiring men, who, according to this claim , are on average 25% more costly per unit of labor than women? Do you think these CEOs don't crunch every number on the book?

EDIT: There are some 73 million women in the labor force(1), and, according to your link, fewer than 100 suits were found to have merit on each of the years. I don't see how that shows the existence of systematic bias in pay.
(1) http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_301.htm

 

[Choppy]

Notice how , while women are getting 60% of college degrees no one seems to care about that.

No. People do care about it. It looks like there have been a number of studies that have investigated possible reasons for the reversal in the gender gap in university education over recent decades. See:
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=related:F67mVBUWyeUJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

And not that I've read these studies in depth, but skimming the abstracts, it doesn't seem anyone is concluding that this difference in enrollment or graduation rates results from systematic biases against males. Maybe there are.

And if there is evidence of it, we should talk about that - but perhaps in another thread. Brining it up here seems like a straw man.

 

[WWGD]

No. People do care about it.

And if there is evidence of it, we should talk about that - but perhaps in another thread. Brining it up here seems like a straw man.

Not here in the US. And, sorry, it was just a minor comment in my reply to Bandersnatch.

 

[xeria]

@WWDG

hmm... male symbol avatar... typical men's rights rhetoric (which, btw, has been discussed and refuted a million times all over the internet)... totally ignored pretty much my whole post.. suggests that women are all lying and being manipulated into playing "the victim"...

nah. How about you prove to me that you're worth the time first, because right now you seem like all the others who don't care and just talking at me.

 

[WWGD]

@WWDG

hmm... male symbol avatar... typical men's rights rhetoric (which, btw, has been discussed and refuted a million times all over the internet)... totally ignored pretty much my whole post.. suggests that women are all lying and being manipulated into playing "the victim"...

nah. How about you prove to me that you're worth the time first, because right now you seem like all the others who don't care and just talking at me.

Maybe you should inform yourself first:
1)the avatar is a default avatar, not chosen by me. It is assigned to anyone who declares their gender in their personal PF page.
2) Women's positions cannot be refuted because they offer no _actual data_. You can, of course, cherry-pick sites where women make their points and ignore those where men make their points.
And, BTW: just what is wrong with men's rights? If you can talk about women's rights, why can't men address their rights, e.g., the right to not pay alimony for a child which has been proven through DNA not to be theirs. DNA: a man's best friend.
3) My position is that women are not systematically discriminated against: there are anti-women biases as there are anti-men biases. Women enjoy benefits men don't and viceversa. If you want to look at a genuine bias, look at race; there you have a legitimate case.
4) I made _specific_ claims, which you can refute if you chose to do so.

 

[xeria]

You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence. When I said men's rights, I was speaking of the group. You know, the actual recognized hate group. As for talking about men, this thread was about bias against women in bio, so talking about men is completely irrelevant and derailing, regardless of your opinion on it, and this tactic is often used to silence conversations about these types of things, so you can imagine my annoyance. As for your claims about men and women 'gravitating' towards different types of jobs, this is influenced by socialization. I still resent your accusations that women just aren't into STEM, clearly, because, well, you know.. WOMEN, and your suggestion that we are being massively manipulated and clearly wrong or lying about our own experiences. I also wonder if you take into account the fact that, historically, women's work has been undervalued.

 

[WWGD]

You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence. When I said men's rights, I was speaking of the group. You know, the actual recognized hate group. As for talking about men, this thread was about bias against women in bio, so talking about men is completely irrelevant and derailing, regardless of your opinion on it, and this tactic is often used to silence conversations about these types of things, so you can imagine my annoyance. As for your claims about men and women 'gravitating' towards different types of jobs, this is influenced by socialization. I still resent your accusations that women just aren't into STEM, clearly, because, well, you know.. WOMEN, and your suggestion that we are being massively manipulated and clearly wrong or lying about our own experiences. I also wonder if you take into account the fact that, historically, women's work has been undervalued.

I don't know, in my experience, I did not have any special reinforcement; I was even told to drop out of my STEM career, and I did not listen. I knew what I wanted and went for it, despite many people's disapproval(including in my family).So I just don't understand their issues on not being appreciated or being socilalized. Yes, this does have an influence, but it is ultimately up to you to overcome the garbage that is put into your head. And the issue about women in Bio was , I think, done away by Student 100's post: how damaging can the effect be if 58% of degrees are earned by women? If such a large percent of degrees in Biology is earned by women, isn't this a sign that there aren't many significant barriers in Biology?

 

[Student100]

You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence.

Personal experience is evidence of nothing - other than someone had a personal experience. It certainty can't be used to prove systematic discrimination against an entire gender of people.

As for talking about men, this thread was about bias against women in bio, so talking about men is completely irrelevant and derailing, regardless of your opinion on it, and this tactic is often used to silence conversations about these types of things, so you can imagine my annoyance.

Actually the thread was about the papers results extending into other areas of science/peoples thoughts on it.

I disagree with the paper quite a bit, I actually think applying the results they saw in biology class to science courses in general is deeply flawed and troubling. If they/or we for that matter, wanted to infer about biases in other science courses, we/they should have found evidence/studied those courses as well.

The paper itself should have also look at a wide swath of courses from lower division to upper division, before coming to some of the conclusions they did.

The fact that they picked biology is also funny, where there is a real male gender gap in terms of degrees awarded.

As for your claims about men and women 'gravitating' towards different types of jobs, this is influenced by socialization. I still resent your accusations that women just aren't into STEM, clearly, because, well, you know.. WOMEN, and your suggestion that we are being massively manipulated and clearly wrong or lying about our own experiences. I also wonder if you take into account the fact that, historically, women's work has been undervalued.

The actual thread has nothing to do with whether historically women work is undervalued or not. Also, feel free to talk about your experiences, but don't expect people to look at the sample size of one and draw sweeping conclusions the way you'd like.

 

[xeria]

This discouragement happened to you, but was it because you're a man? Have a majority of men faced these obstacles ( and it is NOT just "discouragement") because they are men? We have faced these things BECAUSE of our sex. Also, socialization is deeper and more powerful than a few people's discouragement. As for your last question, yes, I do believe it is still relevant, if the rate of women dropping out is much higher than the amount of men (or vice versa), it should be looked further into.

 

[WWGD]

This discouragement happened to you, but was it because you're a man? Have a majority of men faced these obstacles ( and it is NOT just "discouragement") because they are men? We have faced these things BECAUSE of our sex. Also, socialization is deeper and more powerful than a few people's discouragement. As for your last question, yes, I do believe it is still relevant, if the rate of women dropping out is much higher than the amount of men (or vice versa), it should be looked further into.

The point is that if you want something, you go for it. Unfortunately, the world is not a perfectly fair place, and we all need to deal with this. And we all have to deal with biases because of some aspect of ourselves, this is not reserved to women.

 

[xeria]

@Student100 Have you ever heard of scientific polls? As for the contents of the bio paper, I have not asserted a stance and my posts weren't really about this specific paper. As for my remark about women's work being undervalued, that was specifically aimed at WWGD, about his personal opinion.

Your assumptions about what I would like are wrong.

 

[WWGD]

@Student100 Have you ever heard of scientific polls?

.

Then please cite the sources here, with links.

 

[xeria]

The point is that if you want something, you go for it. Unfortunately, the world is not a perfectly fair place, and we all need to deal with this. And we all have to deal with biases because of some aspect of ourselves, this is not reserved to women.

I don't disagree with you, however I think it is unfair to expect women to just get over being harassed and discriminated against. I thought your point (or at least original one) was that there is no systemic sexism against women in STEM, which is what I am actually disagreeing with.

 

[WWGD]

I don't disagree with you, however I think it is unfair to expect women to just get over being harassed and discriminated against. I thought your point (or at least original one) was that there is no systemic sexism against women in STEM, which is what I am actually disagreeing with.

EDIT: We _all_ , except maybe for those in the top 0.1% ,have to get over harassment and discrimination. Of course, we should strive to overcome it, but this is, unfortunately, pervasive in our not fully enlightened society.

 

[Student100]

@Student100 Have you ever heard of scientific polls? As for the contents of the bio paper, I have not asserted a stance and my posts weren't really about this specific paper. As for my remark about women's work being undervalued, that was specifically aimed at WWGD, about his personal opinion.

Your assumptions about what I would like are wrong.

Do you have a "scientific" poll?

Maybe you should read the paper, since that was basically the premise of the thread. Pay special attention to the three sampled classes make-up, and the discussion.

I wasn't making an assumption, you stated several times that personal experience -should be/has been- admitted as evidence into the discussion.

 

[xeria]

Y'all post so fast it's hard to keep up

@ WWGD I think you know what I meant. And my sources to what? You mean stuff like this? http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 Or evidence of polls used in research?

 

[xeria]

@Student100 not ONCE have I suggested that my personal experience is evidence of anything to anyone other than to myself. I used my personal story as a device to incite more thoughtful discussion about the topic of discrimination against women in STEM.

 

[WWGD]

@Student100 not ONCE have I suggested that my personal experience is evidence of anything to anyone other than to myself. I used my personal story as a device to incite more thoughtful discussion about the topic of discrimination against women in STEM.

Then I think it would be helpful to see the differences between that 58% who made it and those who dropped out. I just have trouble believing there are serious issues if so many have done well. Frankly, I would have chosen to study this issue in a field where women are a minority. And, I don't know of any systematic discrimination. Men today are aware of how so many laws are geared in favor of women and they tiptoe about saying basically anything that could even be considered discriminatory. If these systematic biases exist, they must be very subtle ones.
No one dares upset women in today's world, lest they risk a lawsuit. I wish you had had a chance to sit in on the Gender Issues class I took , in which White Heteros were blamed for all the world's ills, and don't you dare ever question anything being said , because you will be abused there in the open, with no real recourse to complain.

 

[xeria]

Then I think it would be helpful to see the differences between that 58% who made it and those who dropped out. I just have trouble believing there are serious issues if so many have done well. Frankly, I would have chosen to study this issue in a field where women are a minority. And, I don't know of any systematic discrimination. Men today are aware of how so many laws are geared in favor of women and they tiptoe about saying basically anything that could even be considered discriminatory. If these systematic biases exist, they must be very subtle ones. No one dares upset women in today's world, lest they risk a lawsuit.

Perhaps they should do more studies in STEM fields where women are more of a minority. As for the rest of this response: well, it's a definitely a view... Obviously I disagree and have my own experiences. I dare say mass harassment and assault is subtle. I'm almost curious about all of theses supposed laws, but they're probably the same arguments I have heard time and time again...

 

[WWGD]

Perhaps they should do more studies in STEM fields where women are more of a minority. As for the rest of this response: well, it's a definitely a view... Obviously I disagree and have my own experiences. I dare say mass harassment and assault is subtle. I'm almost curious about all of theses supposed laws, but they're probably the same arguments I have heard time and time again...

You want to know about laws: in many states men are required to pay alimony for kids they can show , using DNA evidence , are not theirs. The women's lobby is powerful. Prison population is 90% + male, so are deaths on the job, etc. Office of women and girls in WH, but no office of men and boys. No need for women to register for selective service. It is certainly not a man's world.

 

[Student100]

@Student100 not ONCE have I suggested that my personal experience is evidence of anything to anyone other than to myself. I used my personal story as a device to incite more thoughtful discussion about the topic of discrimination against women in STEM.

I, personally, have experienced sexual harassment and sexist remarks. When I introduce myself as a software developer, people don't believe me. I've had men less experienced than I try to quiz me. I hear the disgusting ways they talk about women, about me. My experiences are apparently not uncommon. You can find endless accounts similar to mine written by women in STEM.

These angry and defensive responses just outline more of the problem. When women try to talk about our experiences or even suggest that there may be a bit of bias we get jumped.

totally ignored pretty much my whole post.. suggests that women are all lying and being manipulated into playing "the victim"...

nah. How about you prove to me that you're worth the time first, because right now you seem like all the others who don't care and just talking at me.

You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence.

This discouragement happened to you, but was it because you're a man? Have a majority of men faced these obstacles ( and it is NOT just "discouragement") because they are men? We have faced these things BECAUSE of our sex. Also, socialization is deeper and more powerful than a few people's discouragement.

Now you're just being disingenuous.

Y'all post so fast it's hard to keep up

@ WWGD I think you know what I meant. And my sources to what? You mean stuff like this? http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 Or evidence of polls used in research?

The studies sample is mostly women, the survey questions were worded very broadly, apparently with "have you ever heard of anyone being assaulted or harassed" being a question that determined a positive harassment/assault of the respondent, and it was conducted online.

Further, it appears from the "study" that women and men are both targeted in trainee status, with women more so. However, it appears men shoulder a larger percentage of the assaults and harassment as working professionals.

I also don't think this applies very well to the topic at hand. Harassment and assaults are hardly male dominated bias in the classroom (study was conducted in field exercises). I'm not surprised women are harassed (being told you were pretty was harassing, according to the study), or unfortunately assaulted more than men (assaulted in the study could vary from physical sexual harassment, to rape). This has little to do with intellectual bias though, and more to do with human biology.

 

[Drakkith]

Men today are aware of how so many laws are geared in favor of women and they tiptoe about saying basically anything that could even be considered discriminatory.

Indeed. I remember a day during my military training when myself and a classmate were brought into our instructors office and then threatened with a discharge because one of our classmates had told him that we had been saying sexist/discriminatory things to her. Which was a complete, outright fabrication. I spent the rest of our time in training pretty much never speaking to her, afraid that I was going to say something innocent that would set her off and get me kicked out.

 

[xeria]

You want to know about laws: in many states men are required to pay alimony for kids they can show , using DNA evidence , are not theirs. The women's lobby is powerful. Prison population is 90% + male, so are deaths on the job, etc. Office of women and girls in WH, but no office of men and boys. No need for women to register for selective service. It is certainly not a man's world.

oh my, how predictable. I will admit that the alimony on children that are not theirs is a new twist I haven't looked into, and if that is indeed true, then it should be fixed. Have you looked into the reason of WHY male prison population is so high, and how it intersects with race and class? Deaths on the job are because high risk jobs have been historically deemed men's work, and women were barred, and still highly discouraged and made unwelcome today. Office of women and girls because there has been historical discrimination against women... No need to register for selective service... hmmm maybe because until this last year women have been barred from military positions?

*Yawn*...

 

[WWGD]

Now you're just being disingenuous.
The studies sample is mostly women, the survey questions were worded very broadly, apparently with "have you ever heard of anyone being assaulted or harassed" being a question that determined a positive harassment/assault of the respondent, and it was conducted online.

Further, it appears from the "study" that women and men are both targeted in trainee status, with women more so. However, it appears men shoulder a larger percentage of the assaults and harassment as working professionals.

I also don't think this applies very well to the topic at hand. Harassment and assaults are hardly male dominated bias in the classroom (study was conducted in field exercises). I'm not surprised women are harassed (being told you were pretty was harassing, according to the study), or unfortunately assaulted more than men (assaulted in the study could vary from physical sexual harassment, to rape). This has little to do with intellectual bias though, and more to do with human biology.

Indeed, I have seen so many studies claiming to prove the existence of bias that use only or mostly self-reporting, i.e., if someone stated they felt harassed, then this is accepted prima facie, without questioning, as sure-fire proof of the existence of bias. Disingenuous.

 

[WWGD]

oh my, how predictable. I will admit that the alimony on children that are not theirs is a new twist I haven't looked into, and if that is indeed true, then it should be fixed. Have you looked into the reason of WHY male prison population is so high, and how it intersects with race and class? Deaths on the job are because high risk jobs have been historically deemed men's work, and women were barred, and still highly discouraged and made unwelcome today. Office of women and girls because there has been historical discrimination against women... No need to register for selective service... hmmm maybe because until this last year women have been barred from military positions?

*Yawn*...

Please don't condescend me, I think I have been respectful to you so far. And there is a difference in the length of sentences for the same crime. Just curious: if society and laws are geared towards protecting and giving systemic advantages to men, why do they feel the need to commit crimes at such a high rate?

And deaths on the job are because men are expected to take on dangerous jobs, in a (possibly misguided) effort to protect women; same for serving in wars. And, yes, there is a legitimate case to be made for race, but not for gender, in my view; crimes committed by minorities are penalized much more so than for whites. If there was a serious attempt to repress women, something of this sort could be done. But it is not.

 

[xeria]

Now you're just being disingenuous.
The studies sample is mostly women, the survey questions were worded very broadly, apparently with "have you ever heard of anyone being assaulted or harassed" being a question that determined a positive harassment/assault of the respondent, and it was conducted online.

Further, it appears from the "study" that women and men are both targeted in trainee status, with women more so. However, it appears men shoulder a larger percentage of the assaults and harassment as working professionals.

I also don't think this applies very well to the topic at hand. Harassment and assaults are hardly male dominated bias in the classroom (study was conducted in field exercises). I'm not surprised women are harassed (being told you were pretty was harassing, according to the study), or unfortunately assaulted more than men (assaulted in the study could vary from physical sexual harassment, to rape). This has little to do with intellectual bias though, and more to do with human biology.

Please post a direct quote of any time I have said that my personal experience should be taken as evidence, let alone believed by anyone here.

As for the study, I posted it as a response to WWGD's request for polls used in research, and by extension, your assertion that mass similarities in experience are not used as evidence/cant be used as evidence for discrimination. It was not to prove discrimination against women in stem. As for being told you're pretty, surely you can realize the difference. In what way does it have to do with biology -- I'm not sure I follow?

 

[WWGD]

. Have you looked into the reason of WHY male prison population is so high, and how it intersects with race and class?

.

If society and laws were geared towards giving a systemic advantage to men: why would so many men feel the need to commit crimes at such a high rate when they can so easily get their way? Why has the life expectancy of women been steadily climbing if women have been systematically abused and mistreated? Why do so many studies use self-reporting as an accepted method, where discrimination is deemed to exist if some women felt discriminated against? And, yes, minorities do have a disproportionately high rate of imprisonment, but the ratio of around 93:7 male-female remains.

 

[xeria]

Please don't condescend me, I think I have been respectful to you so far. And there is a difference in the length of sentences for the same crime. Just curious: if society and laws are geared towards protecting and giving systemic advantages to men, why do they feel the need to commit crimes at such a high rate?

And deaths on the job are because men are expected to take on dangerous jobs, in a (possibly misguided) effort to protect women; same for serving in wars. And, yes, there is a legitimate case to be made for race, but not for gender, in my view; crimes committed by minorities are penalized much more so than for whites. If there was a serious attempt to repress women, something of this sort could be done. But it is not.

This is where we get into how sexism affects men. You can google that and look more into it if you like. Lengths of sentences longer because women are viewed as weaker and less likely to be aggressive. Men expected to take dangerous jobs because women are deemed too weak and for making babies, not being people. Your assumption that if sexism was real it would be the same as racism is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. They have different histories and contexts, they may overlap in areas but are not the same.

EDIT: You should note that I have not claimed that the affects of sexism (against women) do not negatively affect men. I do have sympathy for the ways in which men are harmed, however, I don't think all places and times are to discuss that. I think that solving the issues of sexism will help everyone.

 

[Student100]

Please post a direct quote of any time I have said that my personal experience should be taken as evidence, let alone believed by anyone here.

Didn't you read my last post? Look at your own quotes!

As for the study, I posted it as a response to WWGD's request for polls used in research, and by extension, your assertion that mass similarities in experience are not used as evidence/cant be used as evidence for discrimination.

The study I also asked for? Since, you know, we like to have some evidence based discussions here - sometimes - and studies that people think are pro or contrary to the argument are posted?

It was not to prove discrimination against women in stem. As for being told you're pretty, surely you can realize the difference. In what way does it have to do with biology -- I'm not sure I follow?

What was it for then?

I recognize the difference, I tell women they look nice all the time, because that's something you do where I'm from. The study doesn't.

I don't follow either? Why post something you know has no bearing on the discussion? We're going around in circles here!

 

[WWGD]

This is where we get into how sexism affects men. You can google that and look more into it if you like. Lengths of sentences longer because women are viewed as weaker and less likely to be aggressive. Men expected to take dangerous jobs because women are deemed too weak and for making babies, not being people. Your assumption that if sexism was real it would be the same as racism is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. They have different histories and contexts, they may overlap in areas but are not the same.

That is just one possible interpretation for the reasons . And I am not arguing that if sexism was real it would be the same as racism. I am arguing that in race there was(is?) a systemic effort to keep a group down, which is non-existent with sexism.

 

[xeria]

@Student100 I reread the quotes and I remember my intentions when writing them, neither of these conclude that I meant for my own personal experiences to be taken even as truth.
I don't remember you asking for a specific study, only asking me if I have a poll ( and you asked this in response to me asking if you have ever heard of polls because they use anecdotal evidence)

As I stated, the poll was a poll about women's issues directed at WWGD's request.

Do you interrupt women at work to tell them how pretty they are when it is irrelevant and unprofessional and unwelcomed? because, yes, that is harassment.

I wanted to clear up why you think that the outcome of the study has to do with biology?

@WWGD Technically, yes, you are correct, it is one interpretation, but so is yours, and I disagree with the second part, so I'm not sure what else there is to be said.

 

[Bandersnatch]

From what I read, if I understood correctly, the reasonable causes (cases with merit) were less than 100/year within the dataset,

You did not understand correctly. Reasonable cause is a separate category from merit resolutions. These are not synonymous, nor is one a subset of the other. There is a definitions section provided, explaining what falls under what term.

In any case, the data shows that this practice, despite being illegal, remains a real and persistent problem in the US.

Just curious: are CEOs ignorant of this supposed difference in pay? If so, why don't they hire only women , have them do all the work at 77% of the cost
and then pocket the difference?

You're still arguing against the same stawman. The gap is a difference in median income. It's also only a 'supposed' one, if you're not curious enough to read the data: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54751.

These data should be the starting points of any discussion on gender income inequality. What I see here is an effort to dismiss them as non-existent which does show that the discussion is not held to the same standards we'd normally apply on PF.