nocturnalso I read a bit of that 12 page study fuck that 50 page study, I'm not reading it but I already addressed that back on the first or second page. they just took the entire category of Doctors and didnt take sub industries into effect for instance if I start out as a family physician and a girl starts out as a neurosurgeon or anesthesiologist she's going to make more money than me but when they compare it to certain kinds of doctors the gap was not there. You compared to the entire field most men that are surgeons and most women who pick a diffrent feild. Woman are able to pick whatever you want to do a medical school which is in usally pediatrics and family care and tend to stay away from emergency room and surgery.
and before you say it's because women are shunned from being surgeons which is a stupid thing to say. when I talked to a ton of er docs to see if its what I wanted to do in life, all of them told me not to do that job because it's so stressful and terrible and I'm a man so that point is invalid.
finally and I'm going to personally insult you you are fucking retarded read the conclusion of the study you just posted it actually proves my point not yours. that post you just made is literally the most moronic thing I've ever seen on Newschoolers you posted up a study and didn't even bother to read the results I bet you googled gender pay gap study and then copy and pasted the first one, but thanks for backing up my points with a study. see what happens when you go looking for proof.
llolololololol I have read the conclusion and it states that there's not a significant pay gap. And it found that woman are 9.7% are less likely to be promoted. Notice how it said MOST of the way gap is explained by gap, not all but most. Meaning there is still a gender pay gap.
" Both the results from the Linear Probability Model and the Probit indicate that, all else being equal,
being a woman lowers the probability of being a Full Professor among current faculty members by close
to 6% and this effect is significant at the 5%level. These results imply that the factors used in the
decomposition of the gender pay gap themselves contain some gender biases and that the female salary
disadvantage found in section 3 may indeed only be a lower bound."
But if you need more proof here have a Stanford study.
http://web.stanford.edu/~pista/oxbes.pdf
Also I've addressed societies issues with telling woman that they can't be what they wish to achieve so I'm not going to address that again.
But why don't you provide proof that the pay gap doesn't exist huh? All you've said is that the studies aren't controlled for individuals, which they are in the Stanford study and they still found a gap.
"The ordinary least squares estimates of equation 1 are presented in table 3. The coefficient on the female dummy variable indicates that when differences in individual characteristics as well as differences in job sector and function are included, female graduates are paid on average 8.6 percent less than male graduates"
And don't throw that well why doesn't everyone hire woman over men then? Stanford addressed that too.
"finally, one must consider a Becker-type taste for discrimination to be a factor in driving the wage differences. Working with members of a specific gender, as well as profits may enter an employer's utility function, resulting in different wages for woman and men. As most employers recruiting MBAs in different wages for woman and men are managers rather than owners, in accordance with principal-agent theory, these managers may be less concerned with profits than would actual owners and more likely to allow a "a taste for discrimination" to enter their utility functions."
