Susan Walsh: Chartbreaker, Part 2
Happy day! Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.
This time, Walsh attempts to chart how the sexual revolution has transformed dating, borrowing her argument largely from some dude called Frost who blogs about sex and relationships and PUA bullshit at Freedom Twenty-Five.
Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:
This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).
Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.
Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.
Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:
From "Hooking Up Smart."
Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,
the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.
Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.
Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!
But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.
So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.
Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.
But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:
What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …
Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.
Frost concludes:
The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.
Betty Drapers of the world, unite!
Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.
Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:
It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia, he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.
If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.
Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:
The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.
What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:
For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.
In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:
These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.
(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)
Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.
And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.
NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.
EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.
Posted on August 4, 2011, in $MONEY$, alpha males, antifeminism, beta males, crackpottery, evil women, hypergamy, misogyny, PUA, reactionary bullshit, sex, sluts. Bookmark the permalink. 509 Comments.
Rutee, another reason nerd boys and men have trouble comes from the ways they are nerdy. I consider myself and my husband both to be nerds, but we’re compatible nerds with similar interests. We are both nerdy in the same ways, mostly being into science fiction movies, books, and television shows. I would not have been interested in the average comic book nerd, role playing game nerd, or Renaissance fair nerd. I don’t have anything against those types of people. It’s just that stuff doesn’t appeal to me. Also, the kind of guy that is very into those types of things would probably be annoyed by someone like me who does not enjoy them and knows nothing about them.
It’s not that complicated. All women are assumed to prefer monogamy to polyamory, but are willing to go poly for a sufficiently high-level man. All men are assumed to prefer polyamory to monogamy, but are willing to go monogamous for a sufficiently hot woman.
The trouble is, because men prefer polyamory more strongly than women prefer marriage, men are willing to sleep around with people “below” them but women are not willing to “marry down.”
Fuck MRAs, I caught that “shaming language” meme and calls for beautiful women to ostracize the “sluts” in the comments too. How far in did you read before you actually felt yourself starting to lose IQ points? I got to about the halfway point and then remembered that I had client meeting to attend and couldn’t let the stupid burn out my brain.
Well, when a boy geek and a girl geek *REALLY* love each other, they roll a lot of dice…
Nobinayamu , I didn’t really read straight down, I just kinda jumped around to see which points the author of the post was addressing in the comment thread.
It’s so sad to me that there are women on there agreeing with this nonsense, addressing the finer points of slut shaming and its apparent societal-glue properties. What they don’t understand is that no matter what they claim to believe or how many “sluts” they “shame,” they’ll never be any higher status than those sluts in the eyes of the masters they seek to please.
@cynickal:
“Well, when a boy geek and a girl geek *REALLY* love each other, they roll a lot of dice…”
I am so re-using that.
Orion, I agree that “the model” has a certain amount of internal logic… the problem is that it’s based on nonsense. In the real world, there are not large numbers of beautiful women “forced” into spinsterhood. Do you see any?
Re: used up vaginas. If I haven’t had a penis in my vagina for 10 years, does that make me 10 years less of a hag????
Fuck MRAs, it’s sad but not surprising. I have, unfortunately, met a number of women who sought approval from men by slut-shaming other women. The irony, of course, is what they were often seeking was male approval in the hopes that it would translate into romantic/sexual interest and, thus, painted themselves into a proverbial corner.
It’s hard to be forward with a man if you’ve been indiscriminately shaming all the women who seem “forward”.
It’s not that complicated. All women are assumed to prefer monogamy to polyamory, but are willing to go poly for a sufficiently high-level man. All men are assumed to prefer polyamory to monogamy, but are willing to go monogamous for a sufficiently hot woman.
The trouble is, because men prefer polyamory more strongly than women prefer marriage, men are willing to sleep around with people “below” them but women are not willing to “marry down.”
that’s beyond complicated. it’s just a convoluted mess. dating isn’t a calculus problem. if you have to put so much effort into understand it, that’s probably because you treat it like one.
So…Orion, do you agree with Susan’s logic?
I’m guessing the whole “used up vagina” thing is one part size anxiety combined with one part… not actually having a whole lot of “hands-on” experience with vagina. Per se.
You know what I’ve always found funny? This obsession with the “used up” or “worn out” vagina from men who want to go back to the old days when birth control was scarce and women often had upwards of six children.* Uterine prolapse, anyone?
*For the record, I don’t think that all women who had lots of children had “worn out” vaginas or uterine prolapse. In fact the former prevalence of families with six and more kids makes me think that it’s all but impossible for vaginas to “wear out”.
Vaginas are pretty amazing, really. So are penises for that matter. I wonder do these guys think their penis might wear out, with the constant inflate-deflate thing?
@Magpie, well there’s also a lot of erosion from friction as well…
@Orion, you know what happens when you assume…?
Re: used up vaginas. If I haven’t had a penis in my vagina for 10 years, does that make me 10 years less of a hag????
I think you automatically get your virginity back. Use it well, padawan.
I’m surprised we’ve gotten this far without someone making an ECONOMIC STAGNATION!!!!! reference.
Nope, Susan’s model is almost completely inconsistent with reality as I observe it. It’s just more consistent with itself than some give it credit for.
As for vaginas being used up: I think there’s some good old fashioned Oedipal stuff going on here, since the older the vagina, the more like mommy’s it is, supposedly. I think that may account for the popularity for the shaved trend in porn, which is something that baffles me, personally.
Victoria Von Syrus
I made on the blog thread. I think i was the only one who was amused.
According to the commentariat over there, I’m a used up cheating piece of shit that quality men will avoid like the plague. The only reason I’m sex pz is to delude myself of that fact for just a little while longer….
Why does Ms. Walsh believe that attractiveness is the only quality that people look for in a sexual and romantic partner? While attractiveness is a major one, people can disqualified on account of personality just as easily.
MRAs are constantly confusing one-night-stands and relationships. It’s one of the reason Roissy and Roosh are seen as dating gurus for them. For them the only reason for a man to get married to a woman or to have a girlfriend is that she’s hot. Personality doesn’t count for them. That’s why they are obsessed by college girls and think that all women above 25 have no success with men.
and I wonder where MrA’s develop their coldly transactional views about relationships.
Because they can only have sex with prostitutes.
Okay, I’ve been reading the post and comments over there, and I’m afraid I just don’t get it.
Maybe it’s because I’m still a virgin, but I honestly don’t understand these people. What’s the POINT of making sex and relationships out to be some sort of marketplace? What the hell do they care who other people sleep with? How can they see other people as nothing more than commodities to be bought and sold and used? It’s pathetic.
As far as I can tell, they’re all jealous, insecure, obsessive little people who can’t be satisfied unless everyone else is playing by their rules. Like very young children when the teacher has them play a nonsense game, and one child breaks a rule and another child throws a hissy fit because the other kid’s not doing it right.
“No! You’re supposed to do it THIS way! Waaaaaah!”
Well, as a 10/10, I have to a agree that it is difficult to be so beautiful…
The level of obsession with other people’s boinking habits is definitely disconcerting. These are the kind of people who have telescopes and binoculars by their front window.
Captain, I salute you. I can’t wait to accuse the next MRA Greek system whiner of being a “sexual Marxist.” For once the GOP/Fox-induced hysteria over labels like “Marxist” is going to come in handy.
As far as I can tell, they’re all jealous, insecure, obsessive little people who can’t be satisfied unless everyone else is playing by their rules. Like very young children when the teacher has them play a nonsense game, and one child breaks a rule and another child throws a hissy fit because the other kid’s not doing it right.
They have Narcissistic Personality Disorder : they think that world must revolve around them.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen MRA’s defend “sexual socialism” by saying it’s okay in that context because women are not a finite resource.
I can’t believe I missed the sexual Marxist thing before.
Sheeeeer brilliance, that is. I look forward to the quizzical looks and subsequent hissy fits that ensue when I start using it.
Captain Bathrobe, I don’t think I’d want my virginity back :) I might just ring up old what’s-his-name and tell him he can keep it ;)
Assuming he’s still got it of course. He might have thrown it away
or lost it when he moved
or sold it for drug money
or pretended it was his own and given it to someone else
…
What Walsh and MRAs seem to want is a form of sexual Marxism: from each according to her abilities, to each according to his needs.
A phrase which appears verbatim in The Handmaid’s Tale.
What Walsh and MRAs seem to want is a form of sexual Marxism: from each according to her abilities, to each according to his needs.
A phrase which appears verbatim in The Handmaid’s Tale.
Really? Dang! And here I was congratulating myself. Oh well, nothing new under the sun and all that.
Davie;
you watch Sex and the City, and love Mad Men. I assume yer gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
If those are the only requirements, then most MRA’s are gay as well. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
maggie, Mad Men is awesome. Have you not seen it?
I watched Sex and the City like ten years ago, but got sick of it. I would not go to either of the movies if you paid me (a lot).
I do watch Project Runway, though. Heck, the first three seasons (still the best ones) I’ve watched multiple times.
.
I love that on her website, mixed in with sources from actual sexuality studies journals, she cites Cosmopolitan polls as if they were representative of the whole population.
Someone makes the following arguement over at Susan’s blog that women were better off under Patriarchy because…
“Women who are a 10 were in the patriarchy better than now because we were securing a men who is a 10 for all her life. They cannot do this now.
They attract a 10. They divorce and they attract a 8. They divorce and they attract a 6 and so on and so forth.
Because the woman SMV drops when she gets older and, even more, if she has kids from a previous marriage.
In my last job, I know a male co-worker of mine who is a 4 (at best: he is ugly, short and with a bad-paid job) and his wife is a solid 8 (but with two kids). Yes, he helps her economically. But she would be better provided with her first husband (a solid 8, a handsome wealthy man). Of course, the wealthy man has traded her for a younger model.
I had an affair with a divorced woman several years ago. When she married her husband, she was a solid 9 (or more). She was stunning. His husband was a very wealthy man, who cheated on her and beat her (domestic violence). She had two kids with him and then divorced him. She was a solid 7 then, but with two kids. But, in her mind, she thought she was still a 9. She was super picky. She was infatuated with me but she wanted me to commit and economically support her and her kids. I dumped her. She remains single until now.”
And here I always thought relationships were about, “This other person makes me happy in different ways! Yay!” Maybe I’m just naive. I don’t date, but it seems to me that dating is (or should be**) about enjoying the company of another person, not making strange charts and equations and transactions.
Also, as a solid 8 (or so I’m told), I’m apparently doing something wrong. I should have a pen of roosters outside my room or something like that, right? Maybe I’m misreading things.
I’m still not sure how I would have benefited under patriarchy. I don’t want to date. I don’t want to have sex. I don’t want to get married. I also don’t want to become a nun. I’ve literally had people suggest to me that I become a nun, as if that’s my only option as a non-sex-having person in the modern age. And of course, men get mad that I won’t let them try their magic wand on my sacred vault. (The “Magic Penis” Theory: Their special penis will turn you heterosexual if you’d Just Give Them A Chance) I just see a whole lot of men winning and me losing in this situation.
**Okay, having lived in a culture where this kind of wasn’t the case in many relationships, I know that there are still people who view relationships and marriages as some weird business transaction. Even if it’s not, “You can have my daughter if you give me two cows,” it still comes down to your family register or what university you went to or something. And that’s also why in *this particular culture* you have a lot of very distant marriages–sometimes literally–where husband and wife are basically roommates who have children together and hate each other. I once had an older woman tell me that a husband and wife were *supposed to* hate each other. I do not get this at all. It is fucking weird. /rant
David, I don’t think you’ve even given a straight answer as to why “Warren Farrell,” a former NOW chairman, is on your shit list. When did he piss in your cereal?
Fuck MRAs
Well, at least I know the maturity of my audience when I come here. I could make a joke about how I don’t feel safe fucking someone who may chop my dick off while I sleep, but that would just be tasteless.
So bascially, the majority of men doesnt get any if women get to choose? Isnt that sorta misandric?
Also, its the same hypocrisy again: If men just go for hotties and alot of sex, thats a-OK, but as soon as women do it, its an abomination? This whole “hypothesis” says just as much about what men are supposed to be as it does about what women are supposed to be.
…i like RPGs and porn, btw.
Women count as people under Marxism. Their needs have to be considered. Theoretically, if women had a desire/need to avoid unwanted sex and men had a desire/need for sex that women didn’t want, there is no reason to think the former trumps the latter. Also, a servant class is, well, a servant class, which is as anti-marxist as can be.
FactFinder, I never implied I would chop anyone’s dick off and I WILL NOT tolerate lies about me. I WILL contact the owner of the blog to have your BS removed if you persist in putting words in my mouth.
FUCK OFF.
FactFinder, I just love how MRAs always exaggerate Warren Farrell’s influence in NOW. He wasn’t the chairman of NOW. He was, for a couple of years, on the board of directors of the NYC chapter of NOW.
He’s in my boob roll because, well, he’s a boob. He’s wrong about pretty much everything he writes about, uses misleading statistics and examples, argues speciously if not dishonestly. I always mean to write about him but that would mean going back and reading him again.
Also, he had some pretty creepy views about incest back in the 70s. As in, he thought it (including parent-child incest) was often a good thing. He spent a while researching a book on the subject, but it was never published. Here you can see what he said in an interview about it at the time:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm
Bring it, hon.
“I could make a joke about how I don’t feel safe fucking someone who may chop my dick off while I sleep, but that would just be tasteless.”
Indeed, why settle for just “tasteless” when you can tack “passive-aggressive” on there too.
Off Topic: Warren Farrel said what about incest?! Ugh.
Could you link directly to the source? You seem to have linked to a piece designed to discredit Farrell by any means necessary using obscure and questionable sources. I mean, seriously, you bitch about us using the Daily Mail and then you pull a 1970s Penthouse Magazine article on us?
Here’s Farrell’s response to those allegations if you aren’t too busy. I read your piece and am exposed to feminist propaganda in my daily life, so I don’t think it’s too much to ask that you read a little of mine.
FactFinder, Farrell’s response in that interview you linked to is completely dishonest.
He says this:
That is blatant bullshit. Obviously you did not give the link I gave you more than a curosry glance or you would know that.
Farrell was writing a book on incest — real incest, between parents and children and siblings — in the1970s. That is a fact. He does not deny that.
He gave an inteview to Penthouse magazine in which he said a number of disturbing things about incest. That is also a fact. On the page I linked to, there are scans of the original penthouse article. That IS the source.
Farrell claims to have been misquoted in Penthouse — but only in one quote, the one about “genitally caressing.” (I believe he says that he really said “gently caressing.) He has not denied any of the other quotes, as far as I know, though as in that interview you link to he has tried to obscure the truth about it..
If Penthouse had misrepresented him, wouldn’t he have sued them back then? I’m sure there would have dozens of lawyers eager to jump at the chance to sue them, if he had a case. Why didn’t he? Well, my guess would be that the Penthouse writer had it all on tape.
That interview you linked to makes me respect him even less; it’s such baldfaced bullshit. He must have assumed that no one would aver be able to dig up the Penthouse article.
“Bring it”
Don’t lie about me. Simple as that.
Here you go, FactFinder. Direct links to source:
You’re welcome.
Why is it that our trolls pick such ironic names?
FactFinder is finding it rather difficult to find facts…
“You seem to have linked to a piece designed to discredit Farrell by any means necessary using obscure and questionable sources.”
Yeah, because linking to photo scans of the original published interview (with 140/1294 words of notes added in between the text), is obscuring and a questionable source. You must be incensed whenever you go to the library; the nerve of them housing micro-fiche scans of news-paper articles… They’re obscuring history with questionable sources!
I think Walsh’s chart was hilarious.
It also only applies to certain sexual environments such as coastal cities and most college campuses where alcohol, anonymity, and a hook up culture have evolved. Things are more even elsewhere in the country; some colleges have different cultures (religious for instance) and as women age, they stop riding the carousal anyway as they smarten up and realize that the most attractive men could care less about them.
Anyway she’s read and dissected lots of studies and things on the sexual market, I’d dare say she knows more than anyone on this blog. Her problem is she doesn’t have that research collected, I think I’ll write her and offer to help her do that.
The Farrell thing is old, is a distraction, is an adhom (whatever he thinks of incest has nothing at all to do with whatever he said in say his book about the wage gap), and really isn’t all that bad anyway.
And David? You make some funny posts but you hardly bother to actually research things, so you really can’t talk on that score. I’ve spent entirely too much time on myths like the “wage gap”, I suspect you spend no time at all, merely pull the first study you can find from some ideological syncophants up and post that. Anyway, back to a much better blog: NSWATM. Every now and then you give an actual misogynist a good talking to, but I mostly only come here for the laughs. When you get hateful, you are no longer amusing.
Oh, cute, another idiot who thinks the wage gap is a myth. Would that I had the time to sort through your nonsense, but I’m on call.
@Clarence:
“The Farrell thing is old, is a distraction, is an adhom (whatever he thinks of incest has nothing at all to do with whatever he said in say his book about the wage gap), and really isn’t all that bad anyway.”
It is old (to people under 30), it is not a distraction (it was a response to FactFinder), and it is not an adhom (David was explaining why he puts Farrell in his boobroll). And yeah, it really is kinda bad. You have a guy who, at the time, claimed that although most daughters in a father-daughter relationship have a negative experience of the incest, the fathers have the opposite view; this could only mean that either men “view the relationship differently” (how innocent they are), or the women are lying.
Oh, and as to your defense of your idiot brigade and her ‘sexual politics’ claims…. yeah, yeah, and you’ve got a bridge in scotland that’d be a great deal I’m sure. Put it with the mortgage securities. And learn what hateful actually means, it’s not pointing out problematic speech.
Rutee:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
I’ve been on the internet researching this stuff since 1997. I think you’ve decide to take on more than you can chew.
If you want to debate it, meet me at a more neutral ground like NSWATM.
Till then, chew on Consad. I doubt you can handle it without choking.
I’ve been thinking…and if Walsh is against the system that gets middling attractive women the most laid, does that mean she sees herself as a 10 or as a very low number? Or does she sacrifice hot man sex out of solidarity for the hotter and uglier?
Oh no. 1997. You old timer, you.
Protip:If we didn’t control for hours, we wouldn’t get very far.
Try the 10 seconds on google scholar to find studies that try to control for extra factors like that, they really fuck with a serious study on a *PAY* gap when that’s all you’re looking for, and you’ll find those gaps continue. REally, if we wanted to take the easy way out of not controlling for factors like that, it’d be a lot easier to just point out that the overwhelming majority of CEOs and other mega-wealthy positions are held by men. Given the distribution of wealth in the USA, that would create a pay gap substantially larger than the one CONSAD is trying to explain away. But no, we know how to control for factors. You keep shining on, you grizzled veteran you.
Now, differences in those other factors are still important. There’s not just a pay gap; there’s promotion and hiring gaps, and there might be one for hours worked as well. But they’re not the same as a pay gap.
Rutee:
Yawn.
One out of every..1000.. 10000 men is a CEO? CEO being a position in a medium or large company with a fairly defined role. Heck even if you count self employed sole proprietorships I doubt more than one in 100 men could be considered a “CEO”.
The essence of the pay gap is supposed to be discrimination based on sex. But the more factors you analyze, the less room there is for sexism, which undercuts the argument entirely. Pretty easy really. The “pay gap” is a myth. You want to help what IS there?
More family friendly policies. You can also try to get females as a group to change their behavior. Good luck with that.
You are boring me. I suppose you’ll link me to the Amptoons post on CONSAD next.
@ Clarence; Consider it chewed up and spit out…
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2010/11/26/how-the-consad-report-on-the-wage-gap-masks-sexism-instead-of-measuring-it/
Poor studies are poorly done.
Perhaps you shouldn’t use logical fallacies either.
“One out of every..1000.. 10000 men is a CEO? CEO being a position in a medium or large company with a fairly defined role. Heck even if you count self employed sole proprietorships I doubt more than one in 100 men could be considered a “CEO”.
The essence of the pay gap is supposed to be discrimination based on sex. But the more factors you analyze, the less room there is for sexism, which undercuts the argument entirely. Pretty easy really. The “pay gap” is a myth. You want to help what IS there?”
Oh, so you’ve been on the internet since 1997 and this is the first you’ve heard of the distribution of wealth within the US? I know it’s a big place and all but I find it a little hard to believe you’ve managed to avoid it for that long with all those arguments you must have been in and all that research you did.
Also, that’s beautiful. “If you control for those factors you leave less room for sexism!” Well, you do when you actually are left with an equal distribution of pay. There’s a problem there…
Facts are so boring. Why do you respond with tedious critiques of the methodology when Clarence has skimmed over a 95 page report that glosses over things like work samples, hours worked, glass ceilings, etc..
Let’s not even get to the point that in Clarences lengthy 14 years of in depths study of wage gap he’s found 1 study to support his sexist claim while Ampersand’s debunking of it is supported by nine listed:
Oh, the burden of being debunked so thoroughly is so boring!
Yeah, I’ve lived in “coastal cities” all of my life and Walsh’s post is pure, unmitigated bullshit. I also went to college, lived on campus, and saw quite clearly that even in the dreaded “hook up” culture, young adults managed to base their relationships on something other than, “who is the hottest person I can nail”.
Adhering to a wildly subjective 1-10 ranking system and having a religious belief in the concept of Sexual Market Value may pass for rigorous study and “dissection” in some circles. Most of us, however, don’t consider citing some guy who can’t even recognize that Betty Draper is a fictional character and cherry-picking Cosmo quizzes to be a valid form of research.
“Bring it, hon.”
Aww, who’s an adorable little bigot? You are! Come here and let me pinch your cheeks, cuddlebum! Aren’t you just a little sweetie!
cynikal:
I’ll give you two clues:
A. It’s a meta-analysis
B. Ballgame (in the comments section which I was reading when this was first posted on ALAS ..old hand at this stuff, see?) completely obliterates Amp by pointing out that ALL THOSE STUDIES were already included in CONSAD. Hee hee. THIS is the level of analysis on this site?
I’m literally laughing so hard I’m crying.
See, I can do snark and sarcasm too.
Nobin:
I actually agree with you. This article on HUS actually proves nothing and the only reason I like it is because I partly agree with it, and I think the chart that David linked to is hilarious. I’ve made it the background to my computer screen. Susan’s site is a disorganized mess. She actually has read and dissected many studies and formed (and even changed her mind) her opinions over a few years of being on the net. So she sort of assumes her regular readers will take her word, but honestly that won’t convince anyone who doesn’t hang around HUS. Like I said, we have our disagreements, I’m wary of “slut shaming” for instance, and I know that the situation in some colleges for instance, doesn’t totally match the situation in others. Still for the “hook up culture” in larger campuses I think this is accurate. When one is not interested in relationships but just sex and the other partner wants to trade sex for the HOPE of a relationship, you get lots of this stuff.
I’m not going to defend this post because it doesn’t even try to defend itself.
I’ve been on the internet since 1997 too! =D
But back then I mostly just messed around with neopets and this site that did gifs of mice. I can’t remember what it was called, but I was super into it! Also, rpgs. I played a lot of rpgs.
And then a few years after that I pretended to be a 20 year old woman in chat rooms to try and get men to cyber with me. (It, uh, worked.)
What? Was that a messed up thing for a 10 year old to be doing? *blinkblink*
Also, the thing that drives me nuts about that chart is the fact that, apparently, uggos won’t have sex with other uggos anymore. What’s up with that? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
And all of the ladies on MBZ are 10’s to me! =D
(Also, please note that I am apparently back after being gone FOREVER.)