= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
...Oh. I think my sincerity detectors might be broken.
No, I am sure that they are normal, and partly because my mental problem which I have mentioned elsewhere, includes depression. In person, it is very hard to tell if a depressed person is sincere or sarcastic, I just wasn't aware until now that this problem (I think call it 'affect'?) is something I also ought to consider in a pure text situation.
In person I usually fake enthusiasm, but I am fortunately not that good at it. <--serious and funny, yet again. at least it was intentional.
Do you agree?
Yes, of course. That's trivially true and not in dispute.
I still think you're rather missing the point, however. I don't see how it makes sense to object to the phrase 'mostly attributable' when that's a premise of the hypothetical. Let's look at the original comment in context:
E.g. I've often heard it claimed that the difference in average pay between women and men is mostly attributable to differences in ambition and time voluntarily spent at home with children. I haven't looked at the matter enough to know if this is true. But if it is, then denying any population-level differences between men and women seems harmful, because it implies that something that actually has an innocuous explanation is because of discrimination.
That is, IF [the difference is mostly attributable to something innocuous], THEN [denying population-level differences seems harmful]. That's all that was said. Kaj_Sotala never claimed the innocuous explanation was true.
Editeditedit: I apologize for my horrible social skills.
let me just say that 'like, really?' comes across as dismissive of all my efforts to explain what I care about, in the context of my original remark, and why I care about the word 'innocuous' in the hypothetical statement.
I am generous to assume that are not trying to crush my will to respond with irony, and are seriously confused.
But it is more difficult for me to maintain this generosity of spirit after you have already dismissed something relevant to the hypothetical argument and my objection to the word 'innocuous' as 'trivialy true and not in dispute'.
And I am totally willing to maintain at least a pretense of generosity of spirit, because I have plenty of experience with losing my generosity of spirit, and I know that it keeps growing back.
But I wasn't faking any enthusiasm or bewilderment before I read your comment with those two apparently dismissive word choices. "trivial" and "like".
Do you believe me?
When asked "who" would do something, asking for a definition of who is an interesting move.
Apparently so. Can you explain why it is interesting?
Edited to add: I assume you may be trying to explain what is interesting about my comments in the more serious and complicated response you may still be working on, but of which I have only seen the placeholder. I'd say that I can't wait, but I have already had to...
In the self-referentially intentionally funny comment I make above, I was absolutely serious about having a mental problem. And about being easily confused. And about being painfully aware that I am not a mind reader. Absolutely intentionally serious, and, for a change, intentionally funny at the same time. Irony is LOST on me. or everybody else, and I have no way of telling which!
I do not really understand your questions. <--serious
Can you define 'who' <--funny
'them' 'whose' and 'it'? <--serious
Would, compensate, benefit, is, and for I get. <--funny
Actually, 'this comment' was self-referential. The comment you reviewed was intentionally serious, and unintentionally ridiculous. I get that a lot.
But ridiculous is funny, and I totally agree with your last judgement of funny, and wish I had noticed that it was funny, BEFORE I posted. I am trying to get comfortable with being accidentally funny.
I should really just stick with a pretense that everything funny I say is intentionally hilarious, instead of just occasionally patently ridiculous. Apparently.
Point the first - Now I'm confused. Is it that
This question:
Who would compensate them? Whose benefit is it for?
is an excellent question that I actually do not want to answer,
or is it that "I do not really understand your questions."? Or did my explanation allow you to understand that you didn't want to answer, or...
Point the second - Hypothetically, if this:
the difference in average pay between women and men is mostly attributable to differences in ambition and time voluntarily spent at home with children.
is true, then gender pay inequities do have an innocuous explanation- namely, the above. Kaj_Sotala made no claims beyond that, certainly not to the extent of claiming the above statement is true in the real world.
This leads me to believe your point is not valid or valuable criticism. If you think I'm wrong, could you explain why?
Than you for making clear that you do not agree that my point is valid or valuable criticism.
My objection to the word choice of harmless is based on my feelings, which I have not fully examined, that there may be harm.
Point the second - Hypothetically, if this:
the difference in average pay between women and men is mostly attributable to differences in ambition and time voluntarily spent at home with children.
is true, then gender pay inequities do have an innocuous explanation- namely, the above. Kaj_Sotala made no claims beyond that, certainly not to the extent of claiming the above statement is true in the real world.
Hypothetically, I agree with you.
I think I am having the most objection, in the statement you quote, with the phrase 'mostly attributable'. I can think of several other reasons that can and do account for a gender-based inequity, all possibly innocuous. The one that springs to mind is something to do with women and negotiation of payscale, but as I look for resource that can explain what I mean by that more clearly than I have managed to, I came across another interesting theory on wikipedia, that I had never heard of before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_women#Different_Studies_and_Economic_Theories
"They interpret their findings to suggest that employers are willing to pay more for white male employees because employers are customer driven and customers are happier with white male employees. They also suggest that what is required to solve the problem of wage inequality isn't necessarily paying women more but changing customer biases."
This difference does not seem so harmless. Do you agree?
If I had downvoted it, it would be because I can't really imagine reading "Who would compensate them?" and responding "Can you define 'who'?" as a serious attempt at communication.
And you call yourself pedantic? There were a number of referents in my comment which could have applied, and while I usually feel at no disadvantage in a battle of wits, I have a mental problem that either renders me easily confused, or fully aware that I am not a mind reader.
This comment is supposed to be serious and funny. Can you guess which parts I think are funny, and why?
I was never addressing the entirety of your argument - on which I have to reserve judgment, having not thought it through entirely.
As it happens, my wife and I both work. We both receive income in tokens that can be exchanged in any market. However, I think this is a meaningless distinction; per the laws of the state of California, money I make isn't "mine" and money she makes "hers" - money either of us make is "ours". As either of us works, we have more tokens. As either of us does tasks that save us money, we have more tokens. Describing the latter as not involving "financial recompense" I view as inaccurate.
If you simply wish to state that such work is under-compensated financially, I may agree. If you wish to state that such work is often under-appreciated, I would certainly agree. You stated that house work was financially unrecompensed. I was simply picking a nit. If it critically undermines your argument, update. If it doesn't, fix your argument. If you still disagree, please explain why.
I am really enjoying this discussion. And I respect the fact that you are reserving judgment, as you haven't thought it out very thoroughly.
I didn't think my objection to the use of the word innocuous through before I voiced it, and I absolutely don't regret it.
But I am literally having trouble figuring out what else I am supposed to object to. I am willing to try to explain. And I think I can better understand my position, if I understand IF or HOW people disagree with my original objection about word choice. I have not stated this confusion often or clearly enough, so, to set a 'good' example, I will state it as a question:
Do you approve of the word innocuous, meaning harmless, in the statement above? Why or why not?
Having said all that, I'll give it a stab a reply to your more recent comments anyway. The use of a question mark in your words makes it much easier for me to identify your question, and answer it.
Personal note: I am not usually trying to be ironic, but I am aware that I often come across that way. I make special effort on LW to be more precise and direct, and careful in my statements. Taking out the word 'totally', which I usually sling about in order to increase positive feedback in my day-to-day life, in order to suggest that I have a sense of humor about my unfortunate 'know it all' attitude may have been an error. Feel free to assume I am just trying to make a humorous point instead of a serious one, if you find me offensive on a rational level!
But enough about me...
'such work' is not defined, but I assume you are referring to home work, whether paid in negotiable tokens or 'financially unrecompensed'.
I did not notice stating this:
You stated that house work was financially unrecompensed.
And what the state of CA thinks about the negotiable and non-negotiable arrangements you make with each other, or with employers, I do not really care about, as long as CA does not force you to live there, and there are a wide variety of other options available to you both. Do you have a wide variety of other options?
As either of us does tasks that save us money, we have more tokens. Describing the latter as not involving "financial recompense" I view as inaccurate.
I disagree with your conclusion, but on a somewhat pedantic level. Financial recompense and Optional reduction of financial expense are not equivalent. One is simply a pile of tokens. The other is a choice and a judgment about what to do with a pile of tokens. Do you disagree?
Not sure if serious. Just in case you are, however: 'them' is referring to the people doing financially unrecompensed work in the home. 'it' is the financially unrecompensed work in the home. 'Who' and 'Whose' are up to you to define - that's why they're phrased as questions, dontcha know.
I am trying to be clear about the fact that the ONLY part of this thread I care about was the use of the word 'innocuous'. All these other questions are good questions that people are asking, and answering, for themselves, and for other people, every day. Which I have no quarrel with.
I do not want to answer these questions for other people. This question:
Who would compensate them? Whose benefit is it for?
is an excellent question that I actually do not want to answer, because noone has acknowledged that my point about the word innocuous is valid or valuable criticism. All the feedback I have seen so far dodges this small point to ask me much tougher questions about how individuals should be making these choices.
Why me? I make no assertions other than that the word 'innocuous' in that specific argument suggests that the reasons their is gender pay inequity is harmless. Because I am not sure that it is harmless.
I do not want to quantify the harm, but if you want me to take a stab at it, how about this:
Do some pay inequities cause stress? Does stress aggravate some mental disorders? (for the record, I am not trying to suggest that this harm is greater to either gender!)
My only point is that it is not unpaid.
Circumstance 1) I go to my programming job, write programs for other people, and in the end my household has more money than otherwise.
Circumstance 2) Someone goes to a housekeeping job, cleans up after other people, and in the end their household has more money than otherwise.
Circumstance 3) Someone cleans their own household, part of which involves cleaning up after other people, in place of hiring a housekeeper, and in the end their household has more money than otherwise.
Please clarify why circumstance 2 is "paid" and circumstance 3 is "unpaid", and why 3 is less "joyous" than 2; 3 may, in fact, prefer to be cleaning up for people they care about, and may be better appreciated. And who says a choice being "wholly joyous" is relevant anyway? My going to work instead of working on my own projects is the right decision (I believe), but it is not "wholly joyous" - just mostly.
My only point is this: gender differences and choice difference probably do not wholly justify the pay inequity between genders. The choice of the word 'innocuous' in this case is careless. Do you agree, or disagree?
In answer to your explicit question: I am speaking of negotiable payment, in tokens that can be exchanged in any market. And I am also calculating payment of intangible compensation, like the respect of others and self-respect. I find your actual questions, with quoted words to denote careful usage, confusing.
Payment in 'increased money for the household' is fine, and is part of the calculations individuals use to evaluate and justify their choices. And joys.
"wholly joyous" is, in my mind, an unattainable ideal, but the joy, payment, and respect individuals get for the work that they/we do is measurable, if not always negotiable. And the harm is not always considered at all.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Yes, of course. That's trivially true and not in dispute.
I still think you're rather missing the point, however. I don't see how it makes sense to object to the phrase 'mostly attributable' when that's a premise of the hypothetical. Let's look at the original comment in context:
That is, IF [the difference is mostly attributable to something innocuous], THEN [denying population-level differences seems harmful]. That's all that was said. Kaj_Sotala never claimed the innocuous explanation was true.
Editeditedit: I apologize for my horrible social skills.
Your 'horrible social skills' are almost as funny as mine! no apologies necessary! And your edits are a vast relief to me personally.