Prostrate Cancer and Breast Cancer Kill the same numbers of people every year. Breast Cancer kills mostly women. Prostrate Cancer kills mostly men. These are facts that are readily available to any one that cares to look. So we have two different cancers that affect different groups. Depending on how you get the numbers and where you look Breast Cancer research gets between 3 times to 10 times the funding that Prostrate Cancer gets. This is a hugely disproportionate amount of funding for the Cancer that affects women. This has been a very solid example of how as a society women are not “second class”, but that we actually value women more. We are talking life and death. We are talking about valuing women’s live TEN TIMES as much as we value the lives of men. If this this isn’t sexism against men, I really don’t know how to convince you.
Well except that I’m wrong.
Why does breast cancer research receive more research funding than prostate cancer?
There is actually a good reason for the disparity in funding. Gender is not the only factor that is useful in determining funding. Breast Cancer research is focused on saving the lives of people that are in their 30’s and 40’s. People with a great deal of life left to live if they can beat cancer. Prostrate Cancer research is focused on extending the lives of people in their 70’s and 80’s, people not long for this world even with out cancer.
I support funding the cancer research that will have the greatest impact. Breast Cancer affects middle aged people. Prostrate Cancer is an end of life care issue. While it may not be PC to say, I do care much more about treating and curing younger people that are still productive.
What does this have to do with the Wage Gap? Well everything. I was wrong about the sexism in the funding for prostrate cancer because I was looking at the wrong thing. I was looking at ‘male cancer’ vs ‘female cancer’. While it is possible to segregate the population this way to look at demographics, it is the wrong way to segregate the population to understand WHY there is a disparity in Cancer funding. The meaningful demographics for the funding of cancer research IS NOT gender. It is age. Younger people are given higher priority over older people. This is a perfectly reasonable and understandable division in priority to fund.
This is the exact same thing we are doing with “The Wage Gap”. Gender is not the meaningful demographic. Jobs are. Different jobs pay different wages. If we look at the gap between teaching and programing, the difference between nursing and aeronautics, the difference between Daycare and construction, we see the real meaningful demographics for wage differences. Just as prostrate cancer isn’t getting less funding because ‘penis’, women are not getting paid less because ‘vagina’.
The number most quoted is “Women make 77 Cents for every Dollar a man makes”. Much like gendered differences in cancer funding, this is actually a ‘true’ number. It is just not a significant number, just like the differences in funding for cancer research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
This is not to say there is NO discrimination. There is a 5%-7% difference that isn’t easily explained by life choices and different work.
The reality of “The Wage Gap” is 5 cents of discrimination and 20 cents of life choices. The reality is 5% difference in wages between men and women, and 20% difference between teachers and programers.
The Poisoned Well 
Kudos on the intellectual integrity.
Fist off, you might want to try reading through the comments section of the blog you cited on Cancer. There’s enough questions raised that imho cast doubt on the conclusions.
Also in the appendix on Age & Cancer, where this was cited:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.21923/abstract
…she should have given the whole quote:
“Men age ≤55 years who present with localized prostate cancer do not appear to have a worse prognosis. External beam radiation therapy appears to be a viable treatment alternative and should be offered to men age ≤55 years who present with organ-confined prostate cancer.”
To state that younger men presenting with cancer do not have a worse prognosis is a silly straw-man if I ever saw one. You always are better off with early detection, so I can’t see how this buttresses her argument.
You also say:
“This is not to say there is NO discrimination. There is a 5%-7% difference that isn’t easily explained by life choices and different work.”
Because a significantly smaller gap in wages aren’t (assuming fro the sake of argument) as easily explained by life choices, that does not logically follow. “Unexplained’ is exactly that – unexplained. I get the impression you read the AAUW’s take on it, and took it as gospel, because that’s the same argument you’re making.
This is one of the more recent & thorough breakdowns of the issues at hand here
You can also look at the recent articles I repost on my own blog:
http://underthegoddess.tumblr.com/search/so-called+gender+wage+gap
The one post dated 11/08 is my own reply to someone who sent me an essay they claimed debunked another part of this puzzle: That single, childless, never married women in their 20’s & 30’s earned more than their male counterparts. In defense of that, I published direct links to the actual BLS stats to show this is quite true.
Further down, note the Business Insider link I provided which talk about how Women in Tech make more money than men.
“The Poisoned Well of Feminism” happens because of a rush to conclusions based on confirmation bias. Looks to me like you grabbed the 1st 2 things that told you what you wanted to hear.
Different studies with different methods considering different factors get different results. There are properly conducted very reasonable and respectable studies that have consistently found a wage gap of 3-7%.
I did choose my words intentionally. This is a wage gap that is not easily explained by factors that we know to control for. This is a gap that can be the result of discrimination, but is not necessarily the result of discrimination. It is not explained by factors that we know to control for.
If I wasn’t clear “Unequal pay for equal work” is bunk, it’s bullshit. The situation we have is different pay for different work. Teachers get paid less than programers. Nurses get paid less than engineers. A gender segregated workforce creates the illusion of a wage gap. There is a small difference 5%ish that is explainable by, but not necessarily explained by, gender discrimination.
I don’t think it’s either explainable *or* explained by imho.
Have you read the 2009 Dept of labor report?
There is a very real history of gender segregated work force. I don’t find it unreasonable to think that women attempting “men’s work” are discriminated against, just as men are discriminated against when attempting “women’s work”. When we are talking about a 5% wage gap, then this is a believable level of discrimination.
You are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion does not trump or invalidate mine.
And yes. I did read the report. “an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent”. Exactly what I’ve been saying
Woman are not “discriminated” against anything. they simply cannot meet the physical requirements for everything. That’s why so far all 10 Female Marine OCS inductees wiped out this year.
If you don’t see the many ways women are discriminated against, you are blind. You are the kind of idiot that feminists bitch about. There are many really obvious ways women are discriminated against. There are just as many really obvious ways men are discriminated against.
There are no physical requirements for CEO or Senator. There is no reason to discriminate against men that wish to teach small children.
LMAO@Senator. Are you fucking kidding me?
They aren’t going to give you a seat in the US Senate through affirmative action, Sweetie. You want a shot at it? Get out and campaign! No one is stopping you. You’ve had the ability to do so for quite sometime.
You want to be a CEO? Get out there and work on technological innovations, or design your own video games, or whatever & make your fortune. No one’s stopping you. The only person who gets a key to the executive washroom on his 1st day of work is the janitor.
You’re like most Middle-class valued people: You look at the men on the other side of the Glass Ceiling, because you wish you could be richer. You need also to look on the other side of the Glass Cellar.
Drove trucks for 7 years. So you can take your self entitled bullshit and shove it up your ass. I’ve read Warren Farrell’s books. You know, where the term “Glass Cellar” came from. I have worked glass cellar jobs. The existence of one form of discrimination does not disallow other forms of discrimination.
The existence of one form of discrimination does not disallow other forms of discrimination.
I never said it did. But you have yet to prove discrimination is anywhere in the mix of the pay gap, beyond mere speculation. And if you read Warren Farrell, then you know not to use a bullshit argument on me like the gender makeup of the US Senate as proof of anything.
“Woman are not “discriminated” against anything. they simply cannot meet the physical requirements for everything. That’s why so far all 10 Female Marine OCS inductees wiped out this year.”
There are NO PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS for CEO or Senator. No physical requirements for programmer or network admin. No physical requirements for engineer or architect. The not explained by controllable factors “Wage Gap” of 5% is not explained by physical requirements.
I must say, you are really bad a reason and logic. I really hope you don’t say this shit to feminists. They are equally bad at reason and logic. It would be painful to even look at that conversation.
What’s painful is you repeating the same arguments over & over again when I’ve already addressed them. But have fun spinning your wheels. ;-D
You never did address them…You attacked strawmen.
Nope. I totally addressed why I thought your Senator argument was bullshit and I stick by that answer.
And you still have yet to prove discrimination is anywhere in the mix of the pay gap.
There is a 3-7% disparity between wages of men and women that is not accounted for by factors we know to control for. Discrimination is a plausible and reasonable explanation for this disparity. It is not 100% iron clad proven beyond any doubt what so ever. It is a reasonable and plausible explanation for this aspect of the wage gap that there are not better explanations for.
“It is a
reasonable and plausiblefallback feminist construct used as a lame explanation for this aspect of the wage gap that there are notbetterconvenient explanations for, to say nothing of the fact that it’s not been established that discrimination is even tied to the wage gap or produces such a gap at all, or that said gap is even a “problem” that needs solving.”FIFY
Remember: “correlation =/= causation.”
I’ll stick with getting my explanations from real economists.
LOL
Well there is your issue. Sexism is not economics. It is actions quite contrary to current “free market” thinking on economics. Being sexist is not a rational position, and rational choices are a foundational assumption of market economies. Economists are the wrong people to be asking about sexism and discrimination.
correlation =/= causation
a correlation does not negate the possibility of causation.
Discrimination is a reasonable and plausible explanation for the aspect of the wage gap that we don’t have a better explanation for.
Economists are the wrong people to be asking about sexism and discrimination.
Oh, excuse me for not sticking to waterheaded SJ blogs for my source. What was I thinking?
a correlation does not negate the possibility of causation.
But it doesn’t have to, because the onus is on you to prove it. You still haven’t.
Discrimination is a reasonable and plausible explanation for the aspect of the wage gap that we don’t have a better explanation for.
So says your ipse dixit.
So, False Dichotomy.
My claim is that discrimination is a POSSIBLE and REASONABLE explanation. Not that it is word of GOD infallible truth. I have more than shown it is possible and reasonable.
Not me. not ipse dixit. The study you linked and are “standing by”
You haven’t demonstrated squat. Stop fronting.