http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7625173.stm

 

 

 

So, this was a study conducted by a friend of mine at the University of Florida. It's getting quite a lot of attention, so I thought I would share, and possibly get your opinions.

 

 

 

Here is the video on Fox News:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Woo! Go Beth!

 

 

 

Here is another link: http://www.livescience.com/culture/0809 ... l-men.html

 

 

 

And then here is the actual study: http://www.bethlivingston.net/Nice_v5%20s1.pdf

 

 

 

I'm really not sure what conclusions to draw from this, but I was SHOCKED at the wage disparity!

Hm.. Looks like my wife will be spending her time in the kitchen or the bedroom, leaving neither without my permission :-k

you saw this on digg, didnt you?

you saw this on digg, didnt you?

 

 

 

No, I know her :?

Haha... definitely thought it said sexiest, not sexist. But I wonder how many of those men are married. I doubt any self respecting woman would date them. TBH, I'd rather have less money and not die alone than vice versa. :lol:

But I wonder how many of those men are married. I doubt any self respecting woman would date them.

 

I wonder how many women get married just to have the companionship even with someone who is somewhat or is 'sexist'. :|

 

 

 

This isn't surprising though. In about 30 years this will probably be non-existent, as those 'sexist' men will probably have retired and the 'younger generation' will be in the big spots in companies. Even then though, it might need to be 50...And in 30-50 years, those that are sexist (male or female) are going to be in an extreme minority (and this minority will probably be the ones told by their parents, or male superior what and how women are good for).

The average student at the school I'm currently attending makes sixty grand a year right out of college, so I really couldn't give a damn. Interesting study nonetheless.

What makes you think sexism is going to disappear in the future?

Well guess its time for us to start beating our women... *cricket chrips* come on nothing?

 

 

 

 

 

OT: Intresting study. Though I don't care about the tests. As long as I make enough money to support myself and future family.

Looks like another case of correlation implying causation.

Why are you shocked?

 

 

 

Did you honestly believe sexism no longer exists, both in the workplace and at home?

Looks like another case of correlation implying causation.

 

 

 

I would disagree with this assertion because over time the disparities are growing smaller.

 

 

 

Why are you shocked?

 

 

 

Did you honestly believe sexism no longer exists, both in the workplace and at home?

 

 

 

I was shocked at that large of a disparity with THIS correlation. I didn't expect men who hold sexist views towards women to be making as much as $12,000 more than their male counterparts working towards equality.

Looks like another case of correlation implying causation.

 

 

 

I would disagree with this assertion because over time the disparities are growing smaller.

 

One could just as easily argue that high income earners can generally be seen as coming from "old money" conservative families, or come from families with conservative views which in the past have allowed them into higher tiers of business, and thus create better opportunities for their children.

 

 

 

It's like that study that said that taller people earn more money than short people, but conveniently forgot the reasons why the majority of tall people are tall - they are in wealthy countries and could afford better nutrition and health services.

 

 

 

Generally, people who take up libertarian views do so because they perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage, whereas conservatives hold their values because they have the resources to be content with their station in life.

Looks like another case of correlation implying causation.

 

 

 

I would disagree with this assertion because over time the disparities are growing smaller.

 

One could just as easily argue that high income earners can generally be seen as coming from "old money" conservative families, or come from families with conservative views which in the past have allowed them into higher tiers of business, and thus create better opportunities for their children.

 

 

 

It's like that study that said that taller people earn more money than short people, but conveniently forgot the reasons why the majority of tall people are tall - they are in wealthy countries and could afford better nutrition and health services.

 

 

 

Generally, people who take up libertarian views do so because they perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage, whereas conservatives hold their values because they have the resources to be content with their station in life.

 

 

 

I talked to Beth about your assertion, and here's a summary of what she had to say about this:

 

 

 

Her adviser actually authored the height study that you're talking about, but your theory isn't quite as sound as you make it out to be. The height study examined 3 American data sets and one from Great Britain, so it's within-American changes.

 

 

 

Now with this study, they tracked individuals themselves when they were 17-22, not just whether people started out more traditional or not. So within an individual, his/her income varied as his/her attitudes varied.

 

 

 

She also acknowledges that some of it could be from old money. They controlled for whether one's mother worked outside of the home, and their parent's education, but they did not control for "old money". The issue here is that, regardless of one's job, they see this difference occurring. She claims that it could perhaps be because super-conservative men are better negotiators for better salaries, or that, as I assume she thinks, it could be because men who "buck the system" in terms of not acting as "traditional" men should are penalized in the workplace and traditional women are taken advantage of.

 

 

 

They do not know the cause as of yet, and don't claim to know....but the correlation is there as of this time, and it's very apparent.

I think sexism just happens to be a symptom of the men being controlling and ambitious. I haven't looked into the study that much, but if they attempted to measure ambition and the need to control, I think they would find that those two traits would correlate with sexism. Since it clearly isn't the men's sexism being rewarded (unless we really live in that messed up of a society, which I don't think we do), it much be something else that happens to correlate with sexism.

I think sexism just happens to be a symptom of the men being controlling and ambitious. I haven't looked into the study that much, but if they attempted to measure ambition and the need to control, I think they would find that those two traits would correlate with sexism. Since it clearly isn't the men's sexism being rewarded (unless we really live in that messed up of a society, which I don't think we do), it much be something else that happens to correlate with sexism.

 

I think you're right. It's a case of this:

 

 

 

All sexist people have a controlling nature.

 

A controlling nature aids in work.

 

All aids in work increase the likelihood of receiving a higher wage.

 

Therefore, all sexist people have an increased likelihood of receiving a higher wage.

 

 

 

Am I right, or are there holes?

I think sexism just happens to be a symptom of the men being controlling and ambitious. I haven't looked into the study that much, but if they attempted to measure ambition and the need to control, I think they would find that those two traits would correlate with sexism. Since it clearly isn't the men's sexism being rewarded (unless we really live in that messed up of a society, which I don't think we do), it much be something else that happens to correlate with sexism.

 

I think you're right. It's a case of this:

 

 

 

All sexist people have a controlling nature.

 

A controlling nature aids in work.

 

All aids in work increase the likelihood of receiving a higher wage.

 

Therefore, all sexist people have an increased likelihood of receiving a higher wage.

 

 

 

Am I right, or are there holes?

 

It's not so much a controlling nature = more aids = higher wage, as opposed to people with controlling natures tend to make more confident leaders, and are less fearful of risks than those who take a more introverted stance on life. Therefore, these people will tend to work in managerial positions, or jobs which have a "high risk, high reward" basis. They'll also tend to work for longer hours, thus earning more money.

 

 

 

That said, I'd hate to have an overly controlling doctor, and they earn bucket loads. ;)

I read about this in the paper, and the journalist pointed out that the same goes for women who have feminist views (they earn more than the working girls who don't). I think it's simpler than assuming sexists have a controlling/confident character. The trait both feminists and sexists share is a firm belief in their often not so easily accepted views, which might mean that they will insist to get the treatment they prefer. A sexist will insist on earning more than his female collegue, whereas a feminist will not work for a company that doesn't pay equal wages. The non-sexists and non-feminists will probably care less about this issue. No?

It's not so much a controlling nature = more aids = higher wage, as opposed to people with controlling natures tend to make more confident leaders, and are less fearful of risks than those who take a more introverted stance on life. Therefore, these people will tend to work in managerial positions, or jobs which have a "high risk, high reward" basis. They'll also tend to work for longer hours, thus earning more money.

 

 

 

Could be, but remember, they controlled for what types of jobs they have and if they are working in a "female" or a "male" type of job. They also controlled for hours worked and whether they had a stay-at-home spouse.

 

 

 

I read about this in the paper, and the journalist pointed out that the same goes for women who have feminist views (they earn more than the working girls who don't). I think it's simpler than assuming sexists have a controlling/confident character. The trait both feminists and sexists share is a firm belief in their often not so easily accepted views, which might mean that they will insist to get the treatment they prefer. A sexist will insist on earning more than his female collegue, whereas a feminist will not work for a company that doesn't pay equal wages. The non-sexists and non-feminists will probably care less about this issue. No?

 

 

 

The problem with this conjecture is that most people do not know whether their jobs are paying them equally or unequally (hence the dearth of lawsuits on pay discrimination).

I read about this in the paper, and the journalist pointed out that the same goes for women who have feminist views (they earn more than the working girls who don't). I think it's simpler than assuming sexists have a controlling/confident character. The trait both feminists and sexists share is a firm belief in their often not so easily accepted views, which might mean that they will insist to get the treatment they prefer. A sexist will insist on earning more than his female collegue, whereas a feminist will not work for a company that doesn't pay equal wages. The non-sexists and non-feminists will probably care less about this issue. No?

 

 

 

The problem with this conjecture is that most people do not know whether their jobs are paying them equally or unequally (hence the dearth of lawsuits on pay discrimination).

 

 

 

I don't see how that changes my hunch. It's true that most people don't know, but most people aren't sexist/feminist. So most people make little effort to find out if they're paid less/more beforehand. Since men aren't at a risk to be paid less than their female collegues, even the non-sexist ones will be fine with either scenario. As for women, even though there may be many lawsuits, in reality, only a minority starts caring when they do find out they're paid less. Rabid sexists/feminists, on the other hand, are likelier to investigate beforehand, since this is an issue they attach a lot of value to. And insist on their specific choice, landing them in the better wages.

 

 

 

Of course, there are always several factors at play. From my experience, people who dare to talk back on a job interview and have some demands of their own, get the better job/wages more often than the people who are desperate for it. And that is definitely a matter of (showing) confidence.

I can imagine my dad saying: 'Well it's about time' to this. :lol:

I'm not positive, but I'm thinking this is one of those statistics with two factors that are barely related. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how sexism relates to business unless you are a billionare with sex slaves living in your basement being fed once a day. :| .

 

 

 

Maybe some men with high paying business or physical jobs just tend to have sexist views because some believe their job is above a woman's skill. Like lobster fishing (I hear you make big bucks off that) and company CEO. Not that I agree with any of this, just saying.

 

 

 

Although if Palin becomes president these sexist rich men will have to eat their words. Even though a vice president doesn't make remotely as much as a successful business owner... :-k