Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The Gender Pay Gap is mostly a myth. If women want more pay, they can start by working more hours. Working more hours per week would put them on par with their male counterparts and up their pay by 17% or so.
It's obviously not a myth if it exists. You can, I supposed, argue that it's a myth that women are paid less for the exact same work, although even the most carefully controlled study shows, yup, women are still usually paid less even if you control for as many variables as possible. But yes, a lot of the difference in men and women's pay is hours and years of work. Of course, women lose out on both due to family obligations on an overwhelming ratio. Childcare, care of the elderly and disabled, housework, cleaning, cooking... even in double income families these tasks are heavily tilted towards women. The other chunk of the earnings gap is explained by the fields men and women go into, in which mostly male fields typically out earn mostly female fields.
So yes, it's technically true that all women need to do is "work more hours," that ignores the enormous social, familial, and cultural barriers that get in the way.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?
In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.
Average healthcare premiums were rising rapidly before 2010 as well. There was nothing special about 2010 that increased the rate of average premium raise, so why did you call that year out specifically?
The Gender Pay Gap is mostly a myth. If women want more pay, they can start by working more hours. Working more hours per week would put them on par with their male counterparts and up their pay by 17% or so.
It's obviously not a myth if it exists. You can, I supposed, argue that it's a myth that women are paid less for the exact same work, although even the most carefully controlled study shows, yup, women are still usually paid less even if you control for as many variables as possible. But yes, a lot of the difference in men and women's pay is hours and years of work. Of course, women lose out on both due to family obligations on an overwhelming ratio. Childcare, care of the elderly and disabled, housework, cleaning, cooking... even in double income families these tasks are heavily tilted towards women. The other chunk of the earnings gap is explained by the fields men and women go into, in which mostly male fields typically out earn mostly female fields.
So yes, it's technically true that all women need to do is "work more hours," that ignores the enormous social, familial, and cultural barriers that get in the way.
This. A huge part is that women do a bunch of housework that pays nothing, while men reap the benefit of said housework.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
The Gender Pay Gap is mostly a myth. If women want more pay, they can start by working more hours. Working more hours per week would put them on par with their male counterparts and up their pay by 17% or so.
It's obviously not a myth if it exists. You can, I supposed, argue that it's a myth that women are paid less for the exact same work, although even the most carefully controlled study shows, yup, women are still usually paid less even if you control for as many variables as possible. But yes, a lot of the difference in men and women's pay is hours and years of work. Of course, women lose out on both due to family obligations on an overwhelming ratio. Childcare, care of the elderly and disabled, housework, cleaning, cooking... even in double income families these tasks are heavily tilted towards women. The other chunk of the earnings gap is explained by the fields men and women go into, in which mostly male fields typically out earn mostly female fields.
So yes, it's technically true that all women need to do is "work more hours," that ignores the enormous social, familial, and cultural barriers that get in the way.
This. A huge part is that women do a bunch of housework that pays nothing, while men reap the benefit of said housework.
That vastly depends on the individual household though and has massive statistical error margin depending on the specific Arrangements.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Show me, then, your proof, propperly statistically described.
Edit: don't get me wrong, but it is ilusional to state it considering the vast majority of society in the western hemisphere lives only because dual income happens.
Additionally in such circumstances housework get's shared, else society would not even work.
Further you don't take into equation often rural societal structures in which granparents and other related persons step in and do another bunch of duties.
That is the issue i take with most studies showing the "Pay gap".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 16:28:18
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?
In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.
Average healthcare premiums were rising rapidly before 2010 as well. There was nothing special about 2010 that increased the rate of average premium raise, so why did you call that year out specifically?
I can't speak for him. but I know my parents always call out obamacare for making insurance expensive because the year it went into effect was also the year that they began paying their own insurance rather than having it covered by my dad's job. So now they see how much it increases every year and blame it on "stupid obamacare". You could explain to them that it increased before that too, but they wouldn't believe you because my dad's company went through a lot of effort to keep insurance costs down.
The Gender Pay Gap is mostly a myth. If women want more pay, they can start by working more hours. Working more hours per week would put them on par with their male counterparts and up their pay by 17% or so.
It's obviously not a myth if it exists. You can, I supposed, argue that it's a myth that women are paid less for the exact same work, although even the most carefully controlled study shows, yup, women are still usually paid less even if you control for as many variables as possible. But yes, a lot of the difference in men and women's pay is hours and years of work. Of course, women lose out on both due to family obligations on an overwhelming ratio. Childcare, care of the elderly and disabled, housework, cleaning, cooking... even in double income families these tasks are heavily tilted towards women. The other chunk of the earnings gap is explained by the fields men and women go into, in which mostly male fields typically out earn mostly female fields.
So yes, it's technically true that all women need to do is "work more hours," that ignores the enormous social, familial, and cultural barriers that get in the way.
This. A huge part is that women do a bunch of housework that pays nothing, while men reap the benefit of said housework.
That vastly depends on the individual household though and has massive statistical error margin depending on the specific Arrangements.
The sociological (and indeed ethnographic and anthropological) literature on second shift and its being heavily weighted towards women since it was originally foregrounded by Hochschild (1989) is vast and pretty much beyond dispute. It is a near-universal cross-cultural phenomenon.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 17:14:12
Sub-heading E. Will spam more sources once I'm not on my phone.
So you give me an UN resolution, that refers me to a ton of studies.
Great.
So some have a clear agenda: like these study here: International Trade Union Confederation, “Investing in the care economy: a gender analysis of employment stimulus in seven OECD countries”. Beyond that extrapulatiing from 8 OECD nations only one of which is not in the "western World" is contemprary historically to be considerable in the "Westernized " structure and extrapulating from that to general makro sphere is questionable at best and outright moronical at worst.
(b)Strengthen the capacityand funding for national gender equality mechanisms to effectively support and monitor the mainstreaming of gender perspectives across labour and sustainable development policies, and work with labour institutions in their implementation
Sounds nice, means quota solution, do you know what happened with the quota solution in norway?
Additionally: Political empowerment has also no real argument because helloe hello, Conservative switzerland just voted in 40%+ in the national assembly.
Without quotas.
The Gender Pay Gap is mostly a myth. If women want more pay, they can start by working more hours. Working more hours per week would put them on par with their male counterparts and up their pay by 17% or so.
It's obviously not a myth if it exists. You can, I supposed, argue that it's a myth that women are paid less for the exact same work, although even the most carefully controlled study shows, yup, women are still usually paid less even if you control for as many variables as possible. But yes, a lot of the difference in men and women's pay is hours and years of work. Of course, women lose out on both due to family obligations on an overwhelming ratio. Childcare, care of the elderly and disabled, housework, cleaning, cooking... even in double income families these tasks are heavily tilted towards women. The other chunk of the earnings gap is explained by the fields men and women go into, in which mostly male fields typically out earn mostly female fields.
So yes, it's technically true that all women need to do is "work more hours," that ignores the enormous social, familial, and cultural barriers that get in the way.
This. A huge part is that women do a bunch of housework that pays nothing, while men reap the benefit of said housework.
That vastly depends on the individual household though and has massive statistical error margin depending on the specific Arrangements.
The sociological (and indeed ethnographic and anthropological) literature on second shift and its being heavily weighted towards women since it was originally foregrounded by Hochschild (1989) is vast and pretty much beyond dispute. It is a near-universal cross-cultural phenomenon.
Which is fascinating but it is still statistical absurditiy to claim makro without beeing actually makro. And still does not eliminate Statistical problems based upon the base stipulations of said statistics.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 17:32:41
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Are we playing the "give me evidence, but I'll reject all evidence game?"
Here's a major study (28,000 people) from the UK, with extensive cross tabs based on race, income, education, level, etc. It showed that women do roughly 69% of housework across all groups.
The Gender Pay Gap is mostly a myth. If women want more pay, they can start by working more hours. Working more hours per week would put them on par with their male counterparts and up their pay by 17% or so.
It's obviously not a myth if it exists. You can, I supposed, argue that it's a myth that women are paid less for the exact same work, although even the most carefully controlled study shows, yup, women are still usually paid less even if you control for as many variables as possible. But yes, a lot of the difference in men and women's pay is hours and years of work. Of course, women lose out on both due to family obligations on an overwhelming ratio. Childcare, care of the elderly and disabled, housework, cleaning, cooking... even in double income families these tasks are heavily tilted towards women. The other chunk of the earnings gap is explained by the fields men and women go into, in which mostly male fields typically out earn mostly female fields.
So yes, it's technically true that all women need to do is "work more hours," that ignores the enormous social, familial, and cultural barriers that get in the way.
This. A huge part is that women do a bunch of housework that pays nothing, while men reap the benefit of said housework.
That vastly depends on the individual household though and has massive statistical error margin depending on the specific Arrangements.
The sociological (and indeed ethnographic and anthropological) literature on second shift and its being heavily weighted towards women since it was originally foregrounded by Hochschild (1989) is vast and pretty much beyond dispute. It is a near-universal cross-cultural phenomenon.
Which is fascinating but it is still statistical absurditiy to claim makro without beeing actually makro. And still does not eliminate Statistical problems based upon the base stipulations of said statistics.
That it is a well-documented, near-universal cross-cultural motif precisely demonstrates its validity as a macro-scale generalisation (though I think 'macro' is being used somewhat inappropriately). I'd strongly suggest reading some of this material before making confident a priori statements about the statistical robustness of research.
These aren't articles from Slate or NPR, they're all from business friendly sources which seem to support the idea of cronyism.
This was covered fairly extensively during my MBA program, and it is quite the issue. . . Without getting into the dreaded P word, you can point the shift in thinking to lobbying and tax rates. Then, the board will elect a CEO with an incredibly high salary, because they know when it comes time for the salary of the rest of the board to come up, they'll get looked after. It really is a case of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch your back"
Prior to the rise in skyrocketing executive pay, when companies were actively reinvesting in their workforce and facilities, the executives still made a ton of money (relative to the need required), and still had lavish lifestyles comparable to that of today, the biggest difference is that the rest of the company's assets were "healthy" and taken care of.
Polonius wrote: Are we playing the "give me evidence, but I'll reject all evidence game?"
Here's a major study (28,000 people) from the UK, with extensive cross tabs based on race, income, education, level, etc. It showed that women do roughly 69% of housework across all groups.
So you give me an UN resolution, that refers me to a ton of studies.
Great.
So some have a clear agenda: like these study here: International Trade Union Confederation, “Investing in the care economy: a gender analysis of employment stimulus in seven OECD countries”. Beyond that extrapulatiing from 8 OECD nations only one of which is not in the "western World" is contemprary historically to be considerable in the "Westernized " structure and extrapulating from that to general makro sphere is questionable at best and outright moronical at worst.
i don't quite think you understood my point but alas if you think i play said game i can 't change that.
BTW , i like the first one, because it goes after 3 specific questions.
I also like the questions themselves
(i)A pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works (ii)All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job (iii)Both the husband and wife should contribute to the household income (iv)A husband’s job is to earn money; a wife’s job is to look after the home and family
Altough the conclusion would be interesting, in regards to the persistence of the behaviour in the countries these ethnicities stem from.
that the definition of what constitutes domestic labour may vary across groups making direct comparisons across ethnic groups difficult. In addition there may be real differences in cultural habits that directly affect hours of domestic work, for example cooking meals from fresh produce vs using convenience foods.
Mostly because that would render extrapulation quite difficult.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 18:03:15
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I mean, I get having a healthy skepticism of claims, but the idea that women perform a larger share of domestic work is both common sense and well documented.
Polonius wrote: I mean, I get having a healthy skepticism of claims, but the idea that women perform a larger share of domestic work is both common sense and well documented.
My main argument is against the extrapulation from one position torwards an effect that you can state as general.
This is why i prefer the study the first one of you above the one i quoted out of the UN resolution.
that the definition of what constitutes domestic labour may vary across groups making direct comparisons across ethnic groups difficult. In addition there may be real differences in cultural habits that directly affect hours of domestic work, for example cooking meals from fresh produce vs using convenience foods.
Because it shows that the alone through the definition alone alot can change. And that said definitions are associated with the cultural backgorund and therefore the answers .
Of course i'd also like to see the effect of other social structures on the population e.g. Conscription.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 18:07:16
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?
In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.
Average healthcare premiums were rising rapidly before 2010 as well. There was nothing special about 2010 that increased the rate of average premium raise, so why did you call that year out specifically?
Oh, I think you know perfectly well why
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?
In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.
Average healthcare premiums were rising rapidly before 2010 as well. There was nothing special about 2010 that increased the rate of average premium raise, so why did you call that year out specifically?
Oh, I think you know perfectly well why
Is obamacare still such a hot iron topic?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?
In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.
Average healthcare premiums were rising rapidly before 2010 as well. There was nothing special about 2010 that increased the rate of average premium raise, so why did you call that year out specifically?
*while it's technically true that premiums have been rising since 2010, it's a lie of omission to pretend it started there - a lazy, easily debunked lie. Definitely a trend but what do I know.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Well you see a slight spike, but afterwards the Trends back to normal.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
This thread really highlights the sort of epistemological problem we are in. Not only is there legitimate confusion as to what is "true" but there is confusion about what "true" even means. Let alone the question of who is or is not "qualified" or "trustworthy" enough to discover or deliver that "truth."
Ensis Ferrae wrote: This was covered fairly extensively during my MBA program, and it is quite the issue. . . Without getting into the dreaded P word, you can point the shift in thinking to lobbying and tax rates. Then, the board will elect a CEO with an incredibly high salary, because they know when it comes time for the salary of the rest of the board to come up, they'll get looked after. It really is a case of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch your back"
Prior to the rise in skyrocketing executive pay, when companies were actively reinvesting in their workforce and facilities, the executives still made a ton of money (relative to the need required), and still had lavish lifestyles comparable to that of today, the biggest difference is that the rest of the company's assets were "healthy" and taken care of.
This segues back to the OP pretty nicely, and not only are the problems you pointed out huge, but it also causes an impossible balance. Either you have a conflict of interest if you're honest, or you're colluding in a non-competitive way if you aren't.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?
In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.
Average healthcare premiums were rising rapidly before 2010 as well. There was nothing special about 2010 that increased the rate of average premium raise, so why did you call that year out specifically?
Oh, I think you know perfectly well why
I do, but I prefer to call it out so that I can respond "so this IS politics, let's drop it" rather than leaving it as a thinly-veiled 'not-politics' line of discussion.
Polonius wrote: I think a link to a podcast with Cory Doctorow is the most internet thing ever.
Well, you'll have to forgive me, since I have no idea who he is outside having heard the postcast this morning.
But actually on second thought, you just sort of proved my point...
He was one of the first "internet intellectuals." Blogged a lot about intellectual property and creative commons, and kind of became shorthand for "person trying to make the internet live up to it's potential."
And forgive my snark, but podcasts replaced blogs as the sort of easy entry creative endeavor.
As for truth, I think all cultures have grappled with it, we just mostly have the records from the philosophers, not the Joe Six-packs of enlightenment France or Ancient Greece.
I'll check out the podcast to see the actually point you're making (it's currently workblocked), but I will say that I think one thing that many people get wrong, either accidentally or perhaps even intentionally, is to assume that flawed evidence loses all probative value. Meaning, I'm not talking about a single, small sample sized study, those can be quickly shown to be variance. But if you have multiple, large studies, which all come to similar findings, even if there are some possible flaws in the study, it does not fully eliminate all the value of those studies. (by far the biggest roadblock to truth seeking is motivated reasoning, and putting some sort of tribalism ahead of reality, but that's so well known as to be obvious.)
Polonius wrote: I mean, I get having a healthy skepticism of claims, but the idea that women perform a larger share of domestic work is both common sense and well documented.
Polonius wrote: I'll check out the podcast to see the actually point you're making (it's currently workblocked), but I will say that I think one thing that many people get wrong, either accidentally or perhaps even intentionally, is to assume that flawed evidence loses all probative value. Meaning, I'm not talking about a single, small sample sized study, those can be quickly shown to be variance. But if you have multiple, large studies, which all come to similar findings, even if there are some possible flaws in the study, it does not fully eliminate all the value of those studies. (by far the biggest roadblock to truth seeking is motivated reasoning, and putting some sort of tribalism ahead of reality, but that's so well known as to be obvious.)
Well, my point, very broadly, is the there is a problem of epistemology. We want to know what is "true" but we, as a society, sometimes fail to live up to our own standards of determining what that would be.
Let me share a few quotes from the show's transcript to give you an idea:
Yeah, and I think that the fragmentation of our beliefs is important but overrated compared to the fragmentation of our epistemology, of how we know what to believe in. That in a complicated technical society, we long ago had to put away the idea that you would just ask a trusted person what was true, and instead we have trusted processes. That there are reasons that people of good will might disagree about the technical answer to hard questions like what what food preparation techniques will allow you to eat your dinner without dropping dead before breakfast, or which pharmaceutical products are safe to use and under what circumstances, or is the reinforced steel joist that’s holding up the roof over our head of sufficient strength and flexibility to keep us all from dying from the roof falling on our head?
All of those things are questions that we can’t hope to navigate individually, you… Even if you had the media literacy to know which scientific journals are trustworthy and which ones aren’t, and the statistical literacy to evaluate studies to see whether they were performed well, you wouldn’t have the domain expertise to then actually look at the technical particulars of all of those studies to evaluate them. But we have a process, we have truth-seeking exercises where independent adjudicators hear from multiple experts, they listen to the competing claims, they explain their reasoning when they come to a conclusion, they are bound by strict ethical guidelines about how they can be related to the parties whose claims they’re hearing, and there is a process for appeal if new facts come to light or if the process was revealed to have had flaws.
But that process has become increasingly fraught. The ability of truth-seeking to actually look for the truth is now cabined by the extent to which the truth gores a billionaires ox. And so truth-seeking has become something of an auction, and that is really problematic. You alluded to Boeing and the 737 MAX. The 737 MAX was a decision by an expert body that Boeing could self-regulate certain elements of its safety features. That was wrong on its face; it should have been obvious that that was wrong.
Now, is he 100% iron-clad right and that truth is always now an auction? Probably not, but it is something to consider. For example, he goes on:
People who don’t believe in vaccinations, I think, are wrong, but the story they tell of why they shouldn’t trust vaccines is right. They say the pharmaceutical industry is super concentrated, it’s run by financialized management elites who don’t care if they kill the people who take their products, and the regulators who are supposed to regulate them actually let them get away with murder. And as Exhibit A, I would cite the opioid epidemic. And understanding why claims that the conclusions that our truth-seeking exercises have come to about vaccines are true, and the conclusions that they came to about opioids were false because the reason we have the opioid epidemic is not just because of the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma, it’s because the NIH and the FDA allowed tainted evidence to produce guidance about the safety of opioids that was wrong and should have been understood to be wrong.
So, we would be right to be skeptical, but the catch is, our skeptical conclusions wouldn't always be right. He goes on:
Increasingly there are conspiracies. So there’s a widespread belief among some African-Americans that in Katrina, the reason that the black parishes were flooded was that the levees were dynamited to spare the white neighborhoods. I don’t think that happened; it seems that that didn’t happen. However, in the ’50s, in Tupelo, Mississippi, they dynamited the levees to flood the black neighborhoods and spare the white neighborhoods. And so in the absence of confirming or disconfirming evidence, the hypothesis that maybe this happened… Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. If it’s happened a bunch of times, it’s not unreasonable to think maybe it happened again. You scratch a Ufologist, you find someone who knows chapter and verse about real military and aerospace cover-ups. Now, I don’t think that Area 51 is stuffed full of aliens, but I do think that there are military cover-ups.
And so what we end up falling back on rather than does the truth-seeking exercise think it’s true or not, is this heuristic of does someone who says things that have turned out to be correct tell me that there is a conspiracy afoot. And if so, I guess I’ll just trust them based on whatever they say.
So, we have a problem here, because the process isn't working as it likely should. We are just picking and choosing who to believe and they are just picking and choosing what they want to believe. That isn't likely to be a good recipe for "truth." Even if we disagree with what we should consider truth, it hard to imagine that this process would get us anywhere, but maintaining the position of what I'd call "vested interests."
So, I am not really citing him as some "authority" and if it seemed so, I apologize, he just seems to articulate something I had already thought about in a way that is probably better than I could, generally. That doesn't mean I, or he, is 100% correct, but I think the perspective has merit to be considered, at least.
"Wir sehen hiermit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes." - The Phenomenology of Spirit
My main argument is against the extrapulation from one position torwards an effect that you can state as general.
This is why i prefer the study the first one of you above the one i quoted out of the UN resolution.
I find this confusing. The literature consistently demonstrates this to be the case in most families in most contexts in most cultures? What stronger evidence so you want in order to make the general observation that women tend to be tasked with the majority of this work?
that the definition of what constitutes domestic labour may vary across groups making direct comparisons across ethnic groups difficult. In addition there may be real differences in cultural habits that directly affect hours of domestic work, for example cooking meals from fresh produce vs using convenience foods.
Because it shows that the alone through the definition alone alot can change. And that said definitions are associated with the cultural backgorund and therefore the answers .
Of course i'd also like to see the effect of other social structures on the population e.g. Conscription.
That definitions of domestic labour are not cross-culturally consistent is obviously well understood by sociologists, ethnographers, and anthropologists. Considerable work has gone into controlling for such variables (heck, since post- and anti-structuralism, I'd argue that social theory's primary collective goal has been to develop frameworks suited to cross-cultural, contextual applications) Again, it would be worth reading some of the (vast, and therefore sporting many summary texts and comprehensive edited volumes) material before dismissing a decades of peer-reviewed research.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 19:57:13
