This Year’s Pulitzer Prize-Winning Editorial Cartoons

Apr 30, 2015 3:08 PM

McSteroids

Views

440133

Likes

10805

Dislikes

707

The Birdcage

All credit to Adam Zyglis of the Buffalo News

This is my first post ever so I apologise if I've fucked up on formatting or anything like that. And before anybody says anything mean I don't necessarily agree with every one of these but I thought they were worth sharing.

Sauce:
https://thenib.com/this-year-s-pulitzer-prize-winning-editorial-cartoons-7e22ac95d07a

FP EDIT: I know these are not so cool but this was my first ever post so thank you :) Also everyone is screaming bloody murder about the 77c one in the comments because the stats are usually taken out of context, as I said I don't agree with all of these and yeah they're gonna be a bit opinnated they are political cartoons

The FCC one is just...stupid? That's literally the exact opposite of what the FCC ruling means.

11 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 17

Update: So apparently I didn't check the dates on the comic. My bad!

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's dated image, talking about when internet was a business that could be regulated by ISPs via throttling and pay-for-lanes by big 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

companies. Notice how the big car is taking up more of the street than the smaller car? it's hinting at throttling or bandwidth control.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It may depend on when that comic came out. Early reports indicated that the FCC was considering allowing it. It could also be what would

11 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 2

I think it actually came out after the "The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works" edits came out, which is just extra funny.

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

The cartoon was made before the FCC ruling. Until then, most experts expected them to side with the telecomm companies.

11 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 0

Ahhh, that makes sense. Didn't see the date.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

The guy represented in the cartoon is Tom Wheeler, the head of the FCC who was previously a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry.1/2

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Under Wheeler, the FCC began considering promulgating rules allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to violate net neutrality principles.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Just in case anyone doesn't know, Robin Williams played a gay man in a film title The Birdcage in 1996.

11 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

actually a really good movie. The other lead in that is the gay wedding planner on Modern Family

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Nathan Lane, AKA Timon

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nathan Lane, AKA Timon

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#4 is still a gross misinterpretation of data to the point of willful ignorance towards the facts.

11 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 9

Most of these fucking things are. Tort reform could save BILLIONS of dollars. The cartoonist is not all that bright....

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, EDUCATED PERSONS IN THE 15TH CENTURY DID NOT THINK THE EARTH WAS FLAT. FUCK.

11 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

I don't don't think I've ever heard of anyone vehemently denying the existence of gravity.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That cartoon isn't about educated people.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

#10 hits hard.

11 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

I think because it's the truest one of them all

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Satire is more fun without total disregard of facts.

11 years ago | Likes 179 Dislikes 27

People didn't think the fucking Earth was flat in the 15th century. That myth drives me fucking batshit.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Like Imgur is, more fun when in total disregard of any facts or the other side in any two-sided story.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

i'm going to send this man a dictionary with all of the pages except for the one containing "subtlety" cut out

11 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 5

Him :

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Wouldn't it be easier to just cut out that page and send it? Or is that a little heavy handed?

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

has someone ever successfully persuaded someone to change their political view point by yelling at them?

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Once I convinced a person that an acorn was better than a red boat. I think I'd make a great politician.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

...i dont understand the references

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The point was that I was agreeing with you

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

ahh, ok, phew... had me worried there for a second :)

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Am I the only one that cringes at political cartoons? They're always so beat-you-over-the-head obvious and oversimplified.

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

Totally!

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

77 cents can't melt steel beams

11 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Id like to say, it's not just the Rebuplicans who are fucking up big time, it's every single person in congress, they're all the same.

11 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 4

#11 Makes no sense. He's being beaten up by the government, shouldn't he be agreeing with the guy?

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Local cops aren't "big" government.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

"before anybody says anything mean" ...bless your heart

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Meh, among all the edgy ones I'd have mentioned this one too:

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Why is this on the front page with 160 points? Most of these comics are based on lies as well.

11 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 29

Roddit because roddit

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Do people seriously still not understand how Imgur works?

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

I actually don't. How is it determined what's on the front page?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Either it's submitted to User Sub and reaches a certain number of upvotes on Imgur, or it's hosted here and reaches the front page of Reddit

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

this is some high quality bullshit right here

11 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 25

Just need to say that Greek mathematician Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth accurately 2300 years ago.. (1/2)

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Almost nobody believed the earth was flat in the 15th Century. It was an outdated idea even then. (2/2)

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Say it with me now, "Satire"

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I'm pretty sure I've been seeing that global warming one for years. Not to mention two of its four panels aren't true.

11 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 11

Oh, at least two

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

The evolution one isn't either; people generally accepted that adaptation happened for a long time before Darwin; he just answered 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

the how and why. The whole creationist crap didn't really start up until the 1900s; most people accepted that dinos were a long time ago.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's fucking satire showing how ridiculous people are who use the fact that we've had cold winters as "evidence" against climate change

11 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 13

The other centuries, though- adaptation was known to happen and accepted in the 1800s. No one really thought the earth was flat. I'm not 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

aware of anyone notable arguing against gravity because of birds. the whole YEC crap didn't really start until this century.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't think he's going for historical accuracy, just pointing out how ridiculous the argument is in the first place. Some of the best (1/2

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

political cartoons use a little bit of familiar fiction to paint a picture of the topic at hand. Ridiculousness to the point of absurdity2/2

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well that was certainly a far more passionate response than my comment called for.

11 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 10

I'm a passionate guy. I (probably) didn't mean any disrespect to you. Other comments got me heated.

11 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 6

I was mostly just pointing out that I'm pretty sure that one isn't from this year.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I'll allow it. *gavel slam*

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

climate changing takes 1000s of years...the facts are the fact its getting warmer faster than expected..but dont call it climate change yet

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

We have fairly conclusive evidence that humans have caused climate change at an accelerated rate. 97% of climate experts are probably right.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

again not denying that.. but a 0.8 degree C increase from 1880 is not a change in the climate, yet. ..notice the yet

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True, but it's also not strictly just warmer temperatures. It's the general fucking up of the climate, which isn't always a matter of temps.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True, but it's also not strictly just warmer temperatures. It's the general fucking up of the climate, which isn't always a matter of temps.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

you can't use the past as precedent in this case, anthropogenic climate change is far faster than anything previous

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

what? yes you have to.. and there is no way to confirm your second statement. no direct data...only indirect aka core samples

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

no, we're in a situation that has never occurred before so of course you can't use precedent you can use it as a guide but not a rule

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

and it is provable simply by looking at current data temperatures are rising extremely quickly, weather changes etc there is so much

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

evidence out there that what you're saying genuinely makes me so angry

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

so..one artist won everything?

11 years ago | Likes 219 Dislikes 5

I don't fully understand how the prize is given but I think one artist wins based on a collection of their work

11 years ago | Likes 121 Dislikes 6

No, that 1 artist only won 99%.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

'The editorial cartoons of the this year’s Pulitzer prize winner.' would probably have been the most clear title.

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Political cartoons are some of the most misleading, biased, and outright stupid piece of propaganda conceived by man.

11 years ago | Likes 130 Dislikes 29

Somebody is salty.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

*pieces*

11 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

They are jokes, they're allowed to be misleading and stupid if they make you smile/laugh

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 8

Except people *do* take them seriously and believe them. It's fine if it's a joke but too many people consider an honest reflection of life

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Satire is a powerful form of persuasion.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No everything must be super cereal around here.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Apparently

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

But all of these are accurate except the .77 women wage one doe

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

to be fair #14 didn't wind up turning out that way... Thanks Obama!

11 years ago | Likes 690 Dislikes 16

... Yea... You keep thinking that...

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

The fight isn't over yet.

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

Nor will it ever be. Something about freedom and vigilance.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Obama still opposes Net Neutrality, he just opposes it in a slightly different way.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

I don't like much of his policy decisions and wouldn't trust him further than I can spit. And the internet ain't won yet.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

11 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 1

This needs a Pulitzer!

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This. This is fucking awesome. You need to shamelessly repost it.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I don't know, the way it's presented, it almost feels like that's one of many political cartoons trying to paint Net Neutrality as a threat.

11 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Obviously. Look how different the internet is now than 6 months ago!

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

yeah this one confused me too... I was like didn't they decide on keeping equal Internets

11 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

Yeah, but the corporations against it are just trying to overturn it now. There's still work to be done.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Have to realize that these were all created when the topic at the time was relevant to it and don't survive time well.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Unfortunately the whole "net neutrality" thing was pretty much just pure propaganda. Try Googling for "net neutrality criticism" or whatever

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

They only point they made is that regulations will gum up the works... but thats a lot better than the alternative

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

I don't understand that one. Also, the net neutrality issue isn't over; they're still trying hard to undermine it. TPP for one thing.

11 years ago | Likes 157 Dislikes 2

It was written when the FCC was opposing net neutrality.

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Would you mind explaining?

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

basically they're just sneaking in through another channel with the TPP deal

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ya I know it's not over, but I actually have hope about it now

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

New head of FCC was former ISP lobbyist, hence the comic. Comic was drawn when everyone hated him, before he classified ISP's as Title II.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I don't see what Twitch Plays Pokemon has to do with net neutrality tbh

11 years ago | Likes 125 Dislikes 6

No he's talking about thiamine pyrophosphate, a vitamin B1 derivative.

11 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

You will when it costs $10 to see it.

11 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 2

Well then I'll not see it they can go fuck themselves lol

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

But the problem is that it wouldn't be TPP or even Twitch wanting to charge for it.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

They're trying to distract us while they ruin our internets!

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

For anyone who wants to know, the TPP is the Trans Pacific Partnership

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Man... that one about Saddam and ISIS gave me the chills

11 years ago | Likes 318 Dislikes 6

Me too.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That put me off. Not because of the message but because the cartoonist drew ISIS on the snakes, as if we were too stupid to get it otherwise

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

I think ISIS relates far more to Gaddafi than Saddam.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Basing that on what? Before ISIS gave themselves that name, they were AQI, before that JTJ, the "insurgents" in Iraq.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Isis is the flower of the Arab spring

11 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 8

the blizzard of the Arab Winter I think

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

the blizzard of the Arab Winter I think

11 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

Winters coming?

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It's been here for a while I think.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

These seem to be a little one sided!

11 years ago | Likes 219 Dislikes 44

Wait.. Wait.. Are you actually trying to tell us that someone from the media is biased?

11 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Never! Media Biased? Poppy Cot!

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I don't know if you follow the cartoonist's other work, but he's fairly critical of Obama and the Democrats too.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

For being "too right wing". Not even kidding

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Well I guess the guy has to support whatever stance the Buffalo News has, and news agencies do seem to take stances rather often

11 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 10

Job Security

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Probably because 99% of conservative editorial cartoons are penned by racist, sexist, unbelievably crass assholes.

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 25

But, you're always a racist, sexist, unbelievably crass assholes if you don't agree with everyone option and sometimes the truth hurts!

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

I forgot that if disagree with the Democratic party you are automatically a "racist, sexist, unbelievably crass asshole"

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

You're clearly from an adversarial political system.

11 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 4

Very much so! What are you guys doing that working?

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 4

1/3 There's a logical fallacy where people think that just because there are two sides of a disagreement, both deserve equal treatment even

11 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 18

2/3 when one is factually and realistically more in line with what evidence supports. People think there's a left-wing bias in the media.

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 18

3/3 In reality, Americans have a bias slightly to the right of how the world really is. The media is just more in line with reality.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 20

You make some good points.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

So you're saying editorial cartoons contain opinions? Weird!

11 years ago | Likes 84 Dislikes 17

I know!!!! My mind was blown too!

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 6

No, he's saying editorial cartoons seem to contain AN opinion. Hence the "one sided".

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

I mean, only one of these is really controversial (Wage Gap) The rest are pretty grounded in reality.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 14

Only if you share the same bias

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

*sigh* Ok. 1. Depression is a serious disease that doesn't get nearly enough recognition in this country. 2. Domestic violence is a real

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

has ignored/rejected any kind of progress. 13. The GOP has rejected widely accepted evidence of climate change and has turned the issue into

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

are being treated the worst by the government. 12. The GOP has an outdated agenda when it comes to dealing with immigration from Mexico and

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

was not put in place after the Iraq war, now we have issues. 11. The people screaming loudest about government abuse are not the ones who

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Corporations have more and more power over laws in this country, even being given rights as people. 10. A sufficient government structure

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

less wealthy. 15. People completely misunderstand what climate change means. 16. CNN has lost their goddamn minds. 17. Adults in this

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

has not made good on his promises to leave the M.E. 6. Putin has been clinging to a leadership style reminiscent of the U.S.S.R. 7. Money is

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

country are willing (and excited) to give children access to firearms at younger and younger ages. Like I said, all but one of these are not

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

a purely political endeavor. 14. The FCC nearly made it possible for ISP giants like Comcast to restrict the Internet for those who are less

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

often enough for large corporations to stay in business when they've done something horrible to the public. 8. Money can buy politicians. 9.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

all that controversial.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And like I said, only if you share the same bias.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also, I'm welcome to messages if you really want to discuss this buy hate character limits like I do. (one bias I definitely have)

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Please explain how these are incorrect. Or explain to me where I've been biased. You don't even have to do them all. Try doing 4 or 5.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

problem in the NFL. 3. Our basic privacy is being eroded by large corporations and the government. 4. Yeah, pretty controversial. 5. Obama

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just a bit, especially since the women earning 77% of what men earned has been thoroughly debunked.

11 years ago | Likes 85 Dislikes 29

I'm so glad people are realizing this

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

It's not debunked and bias isn't a bad thing for fucks sake what do you want a cartoon to be just two people standing on either side of 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Not necessarily debunked, just shown to be affected by a huge variety of factors, sexism not necessarily being one of them.

11 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 15

Factors almost entirely (down to 0.1%) down to things women have total control over.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

In the context they're using, it's been debunked. When comparing apples to apples, the discrepancies fall within the statistical MoE.

11 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 11

I'd agree with that.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Brian: haha, yes! Ahh that oughta wake people up. Stewie: shuuut the fuck up

11 years ago | Likes 1406 Dislikes 21

I thought of the same line after seeing 3 of these

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

FYI: potato http://youtu.be/pacdFrzmRx4

11 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 0

wow, that is the potatoest potato that ever potatoed.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Brian is my spirit animal.

11 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 31

Your spirit animal is a douche. Funny, but a douche...

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That would explain all the downvotes but I still adore him. It's eloquence not douchiness.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Read in Stewie's voice. +1

11 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Fun fact: this cartoonist went to a college whose mascot is Petey the Griffin

11 years ago | Likes 150 Dislikes 0

Idontbelieveyou.gif

11 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 0

I'll be damned. But did the name come before or after Family Guy?

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

I'll be damned. But did the name come before or after Family Guy?

11 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Well, wiki says it's named for a saint. But the timeline is suspicious... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petey_(mascot)

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

When asked what the name of the mascot should be, the president of the college saw a pea and a cup to tea shortly after. "Pea-Tea."

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Glorious

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Favourited just for that comment

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Wouldn't the person being beaten by government employees not want big government? Did I misunderstand that, or is it stupid?

11 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

It is called irony: the people complaining the most about big government are the blindest to where big government is really abusing citizens

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I found that one odd too. I guess they're saying bigger government would help with racism..? Definite stretch.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

People who tend to speak out about big government aren't really the ones who are getting treated the worst by the government.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Shouldn't the people getting treated the worst by the government want to talk out against it the most?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

See Baltimore. (The thousands who are peacefully protesting, not the criminal rioters.) People are speaking out against the government 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

but not all of them are given the same media platforms as privileged people who think that government aid is a sign of over-sized government

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Makes sense. There are better ways to scale back those programs without simply cutting their funding.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I agree with you there! Still, most arguments against Big Government are kinda ridiculous by comparison.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I get the impression this guy isn't a GOP'er

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

That 77cents crap again. Do no westerners understand basic economics?

11 years ago | Likes 74 Dislikes 41

Please don't judge us all by the idiocy of those among us.

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

Do....whatever you are...understand social context?

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

I like pie. Can I have my free pie now?

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Politics doesn't care for facts

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Economics in Westeros isn't really that complicated.

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

I'm starting to think no

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That 77 cents thing has been done to death: at least since the 80's.

11 years ago | Likes 222 Dislikes 31

And just watch, next year US will get Hillary as a president because bullshit like "1-in-5 women are domestic rape paygap violence victims"

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 6

You said a negative thing about Hilary. Clearly you hate all women. Clearly.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I don't know how to feel about this race. I haven't done any research on Hillary yet so I can't really make a verdict

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sad people are still stupid enough to believe that :/

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

We'll stop whining when women are paid equally.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 11

Women will be "paid equally" when they work the same hours as men, choose the same fields as men and make the same choices. Do some research

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Aww that's so cute if only it were that easy. People choose jobs they want to do, but often aren't selected. Either because of race or sex.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

N'aww and you think that the evil patriarchy is the reason why women choose different choices, in general, than men? Go to your safe space.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

srs question, why don't businesses only hire women if they get paid less? Would save money no?

11 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 10

Well, for one I've noticed the cleaning business is predominantly staffed by women and that usually has notoriously shit wages.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've noticed that farm hands are predominately staffed by men and talk about low wages.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I find this so funny because I've worked jobs and made more than most of the men around me While they make min wage.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You couldn't be anymore right: it's not that women are paid less than men - they EARN less due to working less hours on less lucrative jobs.

11 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 6

I figured, its made out to be you pay a guy $10 and a woman $7.50, if that were true and ppl got away with it why not only hire women lol

11 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 4

All it takes is pure common-sense, though it's so widespread because of its emotional appeal. Please check out Christina Hoff Sommers.

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 5

I've had the same/more experience than male peers, but they would get higher pay (by at least $3 more hourly) & way more PTO.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Well if you're so confident then you should have a pretty solid legal case to prosecute the employer. Good luck.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Well if you're so confident then you should have a pretty solid legal case to prosecute the employer. Good luck.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

This was at a job AGES ago, but even now there's still that difference. I'm not a litigious person, though.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

There are legitimate reasons as to why the gender pay gap between women exist.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

No. There is no reason why one gender should be paid more than the other for the same position and duties.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It's interesting to see how this is changing, with the raw gap narrowing and being explained in better ways...yet the discourse is constant.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

It's to draw votes.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

pathos before logos.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It is has a strong emotional appeal; plus there is a vested interest in some to maintain the myth to gratify their righteousness and appeal.

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

Emotional appeal is overpowered in politics, in general.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Unfortunately.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Most of politics IS emotional appeal, in all seriousness

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yep, cause and effect.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Its also been pretty vigorously disproved.

11 years ago | Likes 148 Dislikes 21

I'm confused, I thought there was a big lawsuit over it (Lily Ledbetter I think?), what happened?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh God don't even get me started on that -_-

11 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 16

Its already been disproven so I'm curious how you could even try to prove the opposite.

11 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

No no I meant on how ridiculous people still believe that there is a gender pay gap. I actually explained it on one of my responses.

11 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 4

This issue is one of my biggest pet peeves. When people bring it up I legit get mad and then link to a 140ish page report to disprove them.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

there is a gender pay gap, of between 3 and 7 cents on the dollar, almost entirely explained by salary negotiations (eg: women don't ask)

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Sauce?

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

It might take me a bit to find sources but I'll find a few.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Google "scholarly journals on wage gap" or something of the sort.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Sorry they tend to be really biased towards the right, so I'm trying to find more neutral sources.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

I disagree with a lot of the points extrapolated from the studies, but I greatly appreciate the effort you made for political neutrality.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A vast majority of studies fail to take into account that men simply work more than women do, or other stupid false equivalencies.

11 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

And to prioritize work over family and health. Men are generally more likely to sacrifice quality of life for respect at work.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Men are also *encouraged* by our society to prioritize work over family and health. Gender bias is at work, just not the way people think.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

doesn't account for experience, education, and a whole slew of other factors that when accounted for wipe out the gap entirely.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Not true, any study that didn't account for exp, edu, job type, and position in addition to anslew of other factors wouldn't get published.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Uh huh.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I suggest you actually read one of the studies linked above and look at the math before you make up your mind.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Here's a decent one. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-77-cent-exaggeration/

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Thank you for posting a more legitimate source than a YouTube video and opinion column. I did not know it was a myth but it still seems 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Here is the labor department's official report from 2010 http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2010.pdf

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

This one says 81 cents, but still doesn't control for types of jobs worked, which is pretty important.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

It absolutely does control for occupation and position. In table 2 you can see that male ceo's make 1949+-58/wk and women make 11598+-100

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

11 years ago (deleted May 4, 2015 3:20 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

It would be fixed if women worked the same hours as men, chose the same education and jobs as men; yet they make different choices.

11 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 9

[deleted]

[deleted]

11 years ago (deleted May 4, 2015 3:20 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Well if you're so confident about that then you seem to have a pretty strong case legally to prosecute your employer. Good luck ;)

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 6

[deleted]

[deleted]

11 years ago (deleted May 4, 2015 3:20 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Really.. Out of the huge corporations you pick on tiny hobby lobby..

11 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 9

Probably because of the SCOTUS case involving them.

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

You mean these cartoons have deeper meanings than surface value?!

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's because of the "corporations are people and have religious freedom" aspect of the case.

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

er the case where the supreme court said was a violation of Hobby Lobby's religious freedom to make them give birth control to employees

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Don't the people who run/own the corporation have rights?

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I didn't say they didn't. Was just explaining why Hobby Lobby.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm not sympathetic, a lot of people (like me) need birth control for medical reasons but they don't give a shit because oh no, sex.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 12

What happened to "Keep the government out of my bedroom"? Because If you want the government out of your bedroom, why would you want (1/2)

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

the government to enforce your employer to pay for the activities in your bedroom?

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

What's most frustrating about this debate is you can specifically say it's for medical reasons and people still argue back about the bedroom

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Specifically my reproductive organs decide to destroy themselves in the most painful way possible when I'm not on birth control.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They have the right to choose their own policies. Just like you have the right to not work for a company that you disagree with.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I said medical reasons. I want the insurance I pay for or work for to cover my important medication like it would for any other medication.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I was also going to mention that they do pay for contraception, but that point has already been brought up.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It was referring to Hobby Lobby trying to deny birth control under the new healthcare law. It was pointing more to that specific event

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Deny how?

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Because the owners are catholic, they didn't want to pay for birth control under the new healthcare law, so they sued.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Are they not allowed to use their own money to pay for it?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And it's not about global warming ignorant retards it's about whether or not it will end the world.

11 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

And more times then not conservatives say no and liberals say yes, that's where the debate starts.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

What if global warming is just a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing?

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

Refusing to use nuclear energy in no way creates a better world. It creates a more expensive one though....

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Nuclear is a green option. Opponents of nuclear are pants-on-head retarded. It's the only option that makes sense to replace coal.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Nuclear is a green option. Opponents of nuclear are pants-on-head retarded. It's the only option that makes sense to replace coal.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I dunno know how "green" it is, that term is pretty flawed. Other than that....yeah I agree

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bullets and Burgers sounds awesome. And kids SHOULD know about guns, and how to respect them. Also, if you have kids around,secure your guns

11 years ago | Likes 150 Dislikes 25

Only because people use them irresponsibly. Would be better if guns were kept away from kids - like a gun range where there is supervision.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Tons of gun ranges have classes for kids. Even the firearm convention that goes on around here does. That one is free, too.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Worth a shot.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Or do it like the rest of the civilized world: get rid of widespread firearms. Well, I guess it's too late anyway. Enjoy your gun violence.

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 9

Yes. There is more gun violence where there are guns. Very astute.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

my parents taught me to respect guns at a very young age. when i was old enough they took me shooting. i was never curious or had access 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

to guns, which i feel was best. curiosity from kids and improper storage/handling leads to accidents... 2/2

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I was taught about gun safety and shot a gun under adult supervision as a child. Then I really knew how important the rules were.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSBgh__Yv2Q This is the incident that comic is referring to. Very sad.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The instructor messed up and didn't take safely percations which sadly cost him his life. Kid shouldnt have had that weapon either.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

What??! Why would any child HAVE to know about guns? The amount of gun related violence revolving around children in America is ridiculous.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

They should know to respect them so if they do come across them later in life they go in informed and safe.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Teaching anyone how to shoot a gun also teaches them how to safely use a gun.

11 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 8

No it doesn't, evidently.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 17

It does, it's not about if they know or don't know how to use a gun as to /how/ they use it. Completely different.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Uses the word "evidently". Shows no counterexample.

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

I think I see what you're trying to say, but I'm not quite with you. Teaching someone to safely use a gun teaches them to safely use a gun.

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

At my local schools they teach kids about gun safety.

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

Step one : don't point at your face

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

What state are you in? I must move there

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's Massachusetts. I wasn't aware they didn't teach that to kids elsewhere. Here they learn what to do with a gun if they see one and (1/2)

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

to never bring one to school or pick it up and to overall be very careful around anything remotely dangerous.(2/2)

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

school is when I briefly drew a handgun in ms paint in 4th grade and got reamed out by my teacher

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I had always heard stories of kids being reprimanded for doing anything gun related and thought it was crazy. But to not teach about them1/2

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Oh. Isn't MA hardcore liberal? If so that's really surprising to me they'd teach that there. The only experience I've ever had with a gun in

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Good, even if they don't ever use them or like them, they should know what to do and what not to do.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

When I turned 16 I asked my dad for a car for my birthday, he refused on the grounds that it's to dangerous, he gave a gun instead...

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

More deaths occur through motor vehicle accidents than by guns, in the U.S. That is.

11 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 4

And considering our generally high number of deaths by guns, that's probably true in other places as well.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The original purpose of cars isn't to hurt people. That's a hypocrite and retarded comparison. Did you know that mosquitoes kills millions?

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 7

To be fair, a lot of people wouldn't mind being rid of mosquitos for good no matter what.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I compared cars to guns because the comparison was pertinent to the comment I replied to. And it's not hypocritical.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

By less than 200, but yes. A lot of those motor vehicle accidents are, unfortunately, cause by people who don't drive properly. Which, (1)

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

to the point about guns being taught/used CORRECTLY, is a good direct comparison (2)

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Uh. For the last time, the 77 cents on the dollar statistic is not true.

11 years ago | Likes 719 Dislikes 152

Not the last time, But I like your optimism.

11 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 5

MRA flag-waving in here getting cringy guys... stat not being 100% right in 140 characters doesn't = the idea behind it inherently invalid.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

yeah but its a nice talking point to throw around so people blatantly ignore the facts

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

Thank you! I am so tired of this statistic being used as the main point of many arguments, when it has been proven to be untrue

11 years ago | Likes 65 Dislikes 30

Source?

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Studies that help illustrate the complexity of the issue: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not sure how to link a youtube video on mobile but search maddox on YouTube and one of his recent videos is on it

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

That stat but there is still a difference in pay between men and women.

11 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

Well, it is true in some industries. It was proven true in Hollywood after the Sony leak, for instance.

11 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 9

Also, women pay more for the same products as men in some cases, like shampoo. This is called the "pink tax."

11 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 9

Here the video has actual sources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HEr8zmVEZQ

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Dumb argument. You have to pay taxes, you DO NOT have to buy a pink razor, and most ladies I know don't, because they don't work well

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Thats because they aren't buying the same product. If they were the same, then you could just buy the male one. Don't be silly.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Thats because they aren't buying the same product. If they were the same, then you could just buy the male one. Don't be silly.

11 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

Like here: https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/taking-on-the--pink-tax---how-much-does-it-really-cost-to-be-a-woman-200501359.html

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Well, often they are the same product, but it requires women to know to compare them. And lots of women do buy male-only stuff.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

This is based entirely on the way actors are paid, it has nothing to do with gender.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Actually it proves that gender bias is especially bad here, since the numbers prove Jennifer should be making more than the others.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Source?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And she probably did, actor are payed a base salary (usually extremely small) and then they get a percentage of the gross income.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The majority of execs make a majority of their money from bonuses and even if they didn't this still would prove nothing.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Well, I disagree. It proves to a lot of people that Hannah and 16 other female execs make less base pay in the same positions.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I work with these people regularly. Hannah replaced a male exec. The WikiLeaks data from Sony showed he made more in same exact job.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A company will pay someone less if they let them

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A company will pay someone less if they let them

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Im so glad someone said it already

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 8

So glad to see so many people on this website that view the world in the simplest and most mindless terms.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 14

If it was true, why the fuck would anyone ever hire a man?

11 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 13

Employers may value a man's work more than a women's. Its similar to paying a premium for a newhire with more experience.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

"For the last time"? Promise? You'll stop dismissing wage gaps based on statistics without social context? Can you convince the others?

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 15

Well. Okay. I mean. You can deny all you want but countless studies show the wage gaps still a thing. You keep on being you, tho.

11 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 35

Wow, the people willing to work dirty or dangerous jobs get more money? This should never happen!

11 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 6

Precisely the jobs women have been trying to break into for years, you mean? Yeah, thats...thats the problem.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

It's funny, because the women I've seen in these jobs had no problem getting them. It's not a lack of desire on the employer's end.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"I have a black friend"

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

The wage gap exists yes but it's not for the reason many folks keeps saying. It's because women as a whole work less hours than men.

11 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

That's just not true. Hours worked, experience, profession, and job role are the first things statisticians control for.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

They also seem to take lower paying jobs and what not. Lots of personal choices go into the 23 cents wage gape.

11 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

Well. Thats also blatantly untrue and a simple google search can show that so.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6

Actually a google search shows my statement to be true.. Here's one from a '06 study http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jul/wk1/art01.htm

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That dummy doesn't know you can turn ripped bulls in for replacements.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

it's true in the same sense that a shop clerk at Tommy Hilfiger earns avg $2000/hour... if your sample size is 2: one clerk and the CEO.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

In order to have a statistically significant ci there is a minimum sample size, but the raw data is easily available from the government.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Most studies have samples 10's and 100's of thousands per position.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's still not enough. EG: Even with sample size of billions the average person has less than two legs as some are missing leg(s).

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's not how statisticians do the math. Econometrics is too complex for me to explain in 140 characters, but I suggest you google it.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well that REALLY IS how THESE "statisticians" have done the math. Simply averaging income regardless of ANY appropriate rigour.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Beat me to it lol.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

It's true, but it's not for the same work, iirc? A man's much more likely to be promoted to CEO than a woman, so it's different work.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

Yes, it does.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 10

Beat me to it lol.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

I thought he was making fun of this being perpetual "argument" of feminists...

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

How can I get my point across if I don't repeat false statistics repeatedly, though?!?!?!

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

i mean wages are still an issue in some areas, but ive only really seen them in "lower end" jobs, like fast food. 1/2

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

in my previous jobs, all my female managers made less, though closer to 50-25 cents, and my sister makes 50 cents less as well. 2/3

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

however, i believe its a cultural issue, as the offending owners come from cultures that are traditionally sexist. (india pakistan etc) 3/3

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

And while we're at it, the Greeks believed the Earth was round. The "science once thought the Earth is flat" thing is a recent invention.

11 years ago | Likes 189 Dislikes 14

This. Thank you. Eratosthenes was a beast (not sure he was the first to measure, but the one I remember best).

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's not a Greek in the political cartoon.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 25

Right, it's a man from centuries after the ancient greeks, who even back then knew the Earth was round.

11 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

You misunderstand. Outside the past 50 years or so, science / the common man in general did not believe in a flat earth.

11 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Science, no. The common man in general? ...that I'm not sure of.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

Save us both the time and just look it up. It is not hard.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

It's true. It just that sexism is a very small and almost immeasurable part of it.

11 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 94

It's not true for how people apply it.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I'm going to guess that this disproportionate amount downvotes comes down to idiots who dont know what "immeasurable" can mean.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

We could make it a thing so you can complain able it being a thing (not sexist just hate ignorance.)

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

11 years ago (deleted Apr 30, 2015 8:43 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Don't start thinking that the people who comment on this website are well informed. For your own sake.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

BUT WHY DON"T WOMEN WANT JOBS AS TRASH COLLECTORS or something like that.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

More: Women statistically tend to make different choices than men about how they want their careers to go & what their priorities are.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

To answer you I could type 140 characters but it would be meaningless. I have just one simple response for you my dear : 'No, you're wrong'.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

Tell me how you measure it. Go ahead.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

...it seems like a lot of people don't agree with you.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Which I find funny, because essentially the exact same comment in a different part of this is 8 upvotes up.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I think the phrase 'almost immeasurable' is they key to your downfall

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Me too. I dont think people realize that word can also mean "impossible to measure". You would think that would be obvious.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not that's it's not true because the stat itself actually is. It's that people don't realize why it's true which is a number of reasons

11 years ago | Likes 65 Dislikes 7

Studies that actually prove this that anti-feminists (or whatever they're called) ignore: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 11

This, so much.

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

It takes all the money all men earn and compares it to all the money women earn without controlling for job type or position. i.e. worthless

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 4

Such as women as a whole work less hours than men, in many cases don't have same experience or negotiate their salaries hard enough, etc.

11 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 5

Also men tend to work in higher-paying, more dangerous fields when we're talking about wage workers.

11 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

Higher paying, perhaps, because we value 'masculine' labor over 'feminine', and girls are actively discouraged from working such jobs

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 14

value masculine labor over feminine labor.

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

No, actually jobs with higher risks (logging, construction, oil field) are higher paying because they are higher risk, not because we

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

Can you point me to the data that debunks this? I'm a stats guy and am genuinely interested. Thanks.

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

I have some raw data from the local market for my industry. Equal pay & promotions, mostly. We do have a bit of a skills gap.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What is your confidence interval?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Debunking the math does not debunk the point, its a bad way to illustrate a social issue.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

The math hasn't been debunked. That's my point. The gap exists, there's no denying it is an issue. Not sure why noone likes your comment. +1

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So much wut

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sexism is sociological, not mathematical. 77% 'disproved' doesn't 'disprove' the impact of sexism on women's earnings. It is not an equation

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

but women and men get payed the same

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

First result on google from huffpost a leftist publication. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2073804

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The link to the first study is broken. The second study tries to explain the wage gap, but does not debunk it or prove it to not be true.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I should rephrase my statement. The idea that women are payed less for the same work is fictional. If you compare all men to all women men

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

greater rate than men, men take degrees that open up higher paying job prospects. TL;DR women aren't paid less for the same work

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also here is the study that had a broken link http://www.aauw.org/research/graduating-to-a-pay-gap/

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

do make more money that is the result of many factors such as the fact that men work more dangerous jobs and while women go to uni at a

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If you look at the regressions, the gap exists when they hold constant factors like line of work and education. I dont blame you for being

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've heard the counter argument that, while the gap disappears if you control for education and other factors, there's still the fact that

11 years ago | Likes 94 Dislikes 21

It doesn't disappear, it decreases to 5-7%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#United_States Not 23%, but still significant.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

There's also the fact that "pink collar" work is undervalued in our society.

11 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 9

But even in traditionally female fields men tend more and get promoted more iirc.

11 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 5

This is also true.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

*to earn more...dammit

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

And don't even get me started on the penalties you incur if you aren't very calculated in your childbearing strategy.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

equally qualified women are promoted less often than their male counterparts, leaving more higher qualified women in lower paying positions,

11 years ago | Likes 109 Dislikes 27

often because they aren't as assertive (/aggressive) in asking for (/demanding) a promotion.

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

The entirety of the 77 figure can be summed up: women and men make different individual choices. In this case, women aren't as ambitious.

11 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 26

And yeah that's very generalized, but it's what actual studies on it found. Women don't negotiate for pay or promotion as much as men.

11 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 7

And, in your mind, that's due to lack of ambition and has nothing to do with social stigmas based on sexism?

11 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Solution to this? Encourage women to negotiate more and to push more for advancement.

11 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

That is because men are more likely to ask for promotion and negotiate their position.

11 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 16

No, women ask for raises and promotions just as frequently, but men are considered confident and assertive while women are needy and bitchy.

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 5

The only women I've seen being taken as needy and bitchy are usually one of the above.

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

But this still comes back to inherent sexism. Assertive and confident behaviour is viewed less favourably in women than men. So women are

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 6

So? Only women can change that by being more confident. It's not viewed less favourably except by sexists.

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 8

conditioned not to ask.

11 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

but I don't have any statistics to back that up, it's just the only argument for the 77 cents that made sense to me.

11 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 14

In that case (according to video by maddox on utub) the gap is 93% and it's apparently because women are statistically happier with their(1)

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Their job. Might be because they actually earn as much as their male counterparts and the people who say it's 77% make them think it's good.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It can also be argued then that men are more assertive when it comes to raises/promotions, while women tend to wait for it to happen

11 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

Except the 77 cents thing is simply comparison raw gross earnings, with no adjustment for job type, qualification, etc. Keyword: EARNings.

11 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

Well that's the point of what I just said. While people in the same position who have the same qualifications make the same, there's still

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Hence a faster climb up a corporate ladder.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That is generally because women tend to be more timid.

11 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 17

No, it's because when women speak up for themselves, they're considered "bitchy" and "bossy," not confident and assertive like men.

11 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

That's what I mean. They do not want to come across as that.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That gets accounted by men being willing to apply when they have 70% of qualifications and women wait til 100%

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Does that control for women asking for promotion as much? Negotiating on pay as much? Lets not barrel forward on assumptions again.

11 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 7

smart!

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

But this still comes back to inherent sexism. Assertive and confident behaviour is viewed less favourably in women than men.

11 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 8

perhaps because they have an attitude about it when they attempt to be assertive because they think they're getting 77 cents on the dollar

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

But women who do ask for promotions get them. Yeah, they are called assholes, men are called assholes when they are so ruthless as well.

11 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

And the fact that maternity leave is fucked up in the US, so women are more likely to have to torpedo their career. But yeah, it's not a (c)

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(c) fact/stat, so much as a 'discussion starter'.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The only data I've seen shows a significant gap (~30c) when controlled for position experience education etc. Would like to see the counter.

11 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

What do you mean by ~30c? A 30% wage gap? That's greater than the raw wage gap data I've heard (20-23%). You don't mean 30% of 23%, do you?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That was supposed to say about 20 cents. Many of my replies are from my phone.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Okay, so where'd you get 20%? You dispute factors described by the study I linked. Why would removing them adjust the gap to 20%, not 10%?

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#United_States 5-7%. Still significant, but not 23%.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Addressed that study in another comment. The study actually reaffirms the common value.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Side note: please don't make other people dig through your comments to find your reply. There's no shame in copy-pasting.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not a broken link. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf Summary says adjusted gap is 4.7 - 7.1%.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Read that study. The gap is significantly higher than 5-7% but they bring it down to that number by assigning a female preference to

11 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

part-time work among other things. I feel this unduely biases the result as wages are significantly lower in these job.

11 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(2/2) accounts for 65.1-76.4% of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, leaving an adjusted gender wage gap of 4.8-7.1%.

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sorry, I tried, but I don't understand the math. I just read the part of the Summary that says controlling for certain variables (1/2)

11 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0