ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 05:28 PM   #1121
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,642
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No, I posted about a specific BBC reporter who quit after finding out she'd been paid less than her male counterparts.
Yeah, two male counterparts who weren't getting the same as each other, both of whom have a higher profile post that she did. She certainly got only a fraction of the screen-time as the other two do, on account of - unsurprisingly - more stories coming out of North America and the Middle East than China. I regularly watch the main BBC1 news broadcasts, and when I've not actively watching anything else, the BBC News channel is my choice background on the three weekdays I'm at home looking after my daughter (plus weekends). Believe me, Gracie was never remotely as prominent as Sopel and Bowen are.

Last edited by Information Analyst; Yesterday at 05:33 PM.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:43 PM   #1122
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 69,303
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Yeah, two male counterparts who weren't getting the same as each other, both of whom have a higher profile post that she did. She certainly got only a fraction of the screen-time as the other two do, on account of - unsurprisingly - more stories coming out of North America and the Middle East than China. I regularly watch the main BBC1 news broadcasts, and when I've not actively watching anything else, the BBC News channel is my choice background on the three weekdays I'm at home looking after my daughter (plus weekends). Believe me, Gracie was never remotely as prominent as Sopel and Bowen are.
Sounds like she wanted equal pay regardless of whether she did equal work. And that's evidence for discrimination?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:31 PM   #1123
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,642
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Sounds like she wanted equal pay regardless of whether she did equal work. And that's evidence for discrimination?
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment",

Just so we're clear, though, below is a list of all the BBC News designated editors, split by known salary band:

200,000 - 249,999
* Laura Kuenssberg - Political editor
* Jonathan Sopel - North American editor

150,000 - 199,999
* Kamal Ahmed - Economics editor
* Jeremy Bowen - Middle East editor
* Mark Easton - Home affairs editor
* John Pienaar - Political deputy editor
* John Simpson - World affairs editor

<150,000
* Katya Adler - Europe editor
* Rory Cellan-Jones - Technology editor
* Will Gompertz - Arts editor
* Carrie Gracie - China editor
* Celia Hatton - Asia Pacific editor
* Gavin Hewitt - News editor
* Simon Jack - Business editor
* Branwen Jeffreys - Education editor
* Fergal Keane - Africa editor
* James Landale - Diplomatic editor
* Hugh Pym - Health editor
* Dan Roan - Sport editor
* James Robbins - Diplomatic and Royal editor
* David Shukman - Science editor
* Sarah Smith - Scotland editor

As can be seen, the ones earning 150,000 and over are the areas or subjects where one would a lot of stories to originate. The one complaining, China editor Carrie Gracie was on 135,000 so towards the top of the <150,000 group, but that also includes the Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe, and Scotland editors. As it happens, those four are an even male/female split.

It seems that Gracie merely fixated on the two geographical area editors who earned more than 150,000 and conveniently ignored political editor Kuenssberg, and also that the majority of editors overall - including the five other geographical area editors (including herself) - all earn less than 150,000.

Last edited by Information Analyst; Yesterday at 06:32 PM.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:47 PM   #1124
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,123
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Your "studies" are more than likely BS and have no credibility. Creationists, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers and many other similar idealogical kooks ( like feminists) cite "studies" to legitimize their claims. When possible, they are all eventually debunked by real science.
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
I'm still better than you.
These studies are robust and replicated.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I don't think you understand Tubba's claim or my request for evidence, because none of this addresses them.



Boo! Men's work is valued less than women's!

I understand it perfectly well and it directly addresses exactly what you asked for. You directly requested evidence that women's work is valued less than a mans and dismissed using pay as a proxy. I provided several avenues of evidence and studies showing that people directly evaluate work as having less merit when they believe it is produced by a woman and more when they believe it is produced by a man. This is even shown to be true in the exact industry under discussion in this thread, with blind recruiting producing women as the majority gender selected for tech jobs. This fact has be replicated so many times that there are even replicated studies showing the gender bias in STEM faculty evaluating these very studies!

This is a fact. People in the 'west' will tend to assign less value to work if they believe it to be produced by a woman. Any explanations of work, pay, hiring practices and the like must consider and incorporate (control for?) this fact. It has been observed and replicated so many times that barring new evidence that all these studies and observations have been fatally flawed, it's as well established as such a thing can be. (This is likely because it's such a trivial thing to test.)
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:34 AM   #1125
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 69,303
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I understand it perfectly well and it directly addresses exactly what you asked for. You directly requested evidence that women's work is valued less than a mans and dismissed using pay as a proxy.
Because there's no causal link between the two.

Quote:
This is a fact. People in the 'west' will tend to assign less value to work if they believe it to be produced by a woman.
I wouldn't be so quick to call it a fact. It's an indication. Studies don't work that way. Also, the "west" is a bit more vast than that. But at least you got further along than Tubba.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:41 AM   #1126
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
Do you have half an hour?

Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson talks about women in the workplace, male and female traits, the wage gap, in an interview by Chanel 4's Cathy Newman (who takes a very combative feminist approach).

I briefly considered making a separate thread about this, but the overlap with the subject matter we are covering is so great that I chose to include it here.

If people are willing to watch it and include the points presented in this discussion, that's good. If not, I might have a go at giving this subject its own thread.

I did not embed the video because I'm an idiot and I don't know how.

Painful to watch though Peterson handles it well. Newman was so blatant in her mischaracterization of his viewpoints (via repeated use of "so you're saying that ...") that I half wonder if she doesn't post on ISF.

This vid does a nice summing up of her technique : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgKE...ature=youtu.be

(for some reason the vid wouldn't play back when embedded)

Ignore the silly numeric counter, and only watch this one if you've seen the full interview, as it completely strips away context. On it's own no one should take it as evidence of anything, but after watching the interview in full it serves as stark reminder on how many times she deliberately repeats back a distorted version of something he'd just said.

Two people in a dialog with no live audience and still there's intentional misunderstanding of what someone is saying. Even if you don't agree with some or any of Peterson's positions, it's inexcusable to willfully misstate what they are when he's sat right there across from you. How on Earth do people think there will ever be fruitful dialog and societal change with crap tactics like this?
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.