REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Bill Maher lays it down on Joe Rogan
- Thread starter grapedrink
- Start date
Yes, the gap is real. However the reasons cited for it be the left are not. It’s not because of duh patriarchy. It’s mostly a function of job choice. Once you control for job choice, the 20% gap shrinks to the single digits.
Instead of airing the impeachment trial, Fox News fed viewers pro-Trump opinion in prime time | CNN Business
Executives at Fox News shielded the channel's audience on Wednesday night from the impeachment trial proceedings playing out in the United States Senate, instead choosing to air its regular bloc of opinion programming which is strongly supportive of President Donald Trump.
www.cnn.com
The editorial choice was remarkable, given it is only the third time a sitting President has faced a trial in the Senate that could potentially end with his being removed from office, though it is almost certain that will not happen. While broadcast networks stuck to regular programming, both CNN and MSNBC, the other two major cable news channels, aired raw footage of the proceedings provided by the Senate.
But Fox News' prime time audience didn't get a chance to see the Democrats make their case against Trump. Instead they saw pro-Trump hosts like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham provide cover for the President.
What does this have to do with anything ?New York (CNN Business)Executives at Fox News shielded the channel's audience on Wednesday night from the impeachment trial proceedings playing out in the United States Senate, instead choosing to air its regular bloc of opinion programming which is strongly supportive of President Donald Trump.Instead of airing the impeachment trial, Fox News fed viewers pro-Trump opinion in prime time | CNN Business
Executives at Fox News shielded the channel's audience on Wednesday night from the impeachment trial proceedings playing out in the United States Senate, instead choosing to air its regular bloc of opinion programming which is strongly supportive of President Donald Trump.
The editorial choice was remarkable, given it is only the third time a sitting President has faced a trial in the Senate that could potentially end with his being removed from office, though it is almost certain that will not happen. While broadcast networks stuck to regular programming, both CNN and MSNBC, the other two major cable news channels, aired raw footage of the proceedings provided by the Senate.
But Fox News' prime time audience didn't get a chance to see the Democrats make their case against Trump. Instead they saw pro-Trump hosts like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham provide cover for the President.
Of course not, and their angry delusional mouthbreathing audience does not care.
I agree with you (and the payscale source we agreed upon last time we discussed this) that it's single digits. Controlling for job choice proves it's not 20%; not sure how you come up with attribution for why the (much smaller than often asserted) gap exists, but I'm sure pre-emptively ruling out "the patriarchy" is totally not feelz-based.
I think Maher is pretty sharp but I'm just not into hearing him whine about science when he's an anti-vaxx English major, or PC culture. The guy used the N-word on his show and didn't lose his job. He's always been an asshole, just he is my asshole and amuses me so I am fonder of the sh!t that comes out of his mouth. I just want to hear him whine about PC as much as I want to hear Donald Trump Jr whine about Hunter Biden. Rogan is all good on the topic though.
Also I still can't tell Rogan and Dana White apart until they start speaking.
I didn’t watch your clip. Both those dudes are dickwad entertainers who’ll say whatever for ratings.
The retard right loves their entertainers, they elected one President.
Yes, after controlling for job choice the gap shrinks to the low single digits. However I’ve listened to hours of NPR on the topic and I’ve never heard them touch on the job choice aspect.
What do I think accounts for the remaining gap? Most likely:
1) Men are more likely to negotiate, and may be more successful at it. This is somewhere where there could be some bias, whether overt or subconsciously.
2) There probably is some old boys clubism at the very top of some organizations, but that is a very small subset of high earners.
3) When women have kids, they can lose a few years of career advancement and will probably have to play catch up with changes and new advancements in their industry
4) Tangential to previous, in a 2 parent household with kids with at least 1 high earner, one parent will have to be home more and work a 40 hour/week max job. Jobs with 6+figure salaries where you can pick up/drop off the kids from school, not get strongarmed by your boss into working late, and not have to spend evenings answering emails are not common. Many women will accept a more flexible, less demanding job, while the husband works the job with longer hours and/or travel. Legitimate, but still choices.
I'd consider all four of these one form of patriarchy or the other, although not the type Trigglypuff might think of, and I see this as a look how far we've come, quickly. I'd celebrate the progress vs. screaming at the sky about A. Wyatt Male or whining about women not being women anymore.
#3 in particular, there isn't much to do about that if they decide to have kids.
#4 I think is changing as women are more of the work force than men (Trump's Dec 2019 jobs numbers, not NPR) and are more educated, therefore earning more, and employers in general I think are more flexible and less Japan circa 1980s on this one.
Sure, but the fact that those factors collectively make up a few percentage points, while the main driver (job choice) is largely ignored and unknown to most of the people talking about the issue, is disingenuous.
As for women being more likely to be the stay at home parent, there is a strong biological component to that. Given that men can’t breast feed and all. I would gladly be a stay at home dad and I am currently accepting applications from high earning Silicon Valley sugar mommas (haven’t received any yet).
As for #4, I agree that is changing, which is a good thing. With the right job niche you can certainly negotiate more flexible terms, but I think the mid-to-high 6 figure positions will still be out of reach for most on a less than 40 hour per week schedule.
The far left is almost as bad as the far right. At least insofar as their propensity towards intolerance, ideological aggression, and smug self-righteousness.