1134
1135
1136

Men's RightsIntel Finds No Pay Gap Between Men and Women - Uses REAL Statistics (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

Summary:

This is a link I found elsewhere on Reddit. Providing a short commentary and opening up the floor for discussion.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/02/03/intel-says-there-is-no-pay-gap-between-men-and-women-at-the-chipmaker/

archive.is -- http://archive.is/uzov5

My Commentary:

Here is a great illustration of how we can take raw data and use it to completely destroy a feminist argument. When I saw this link, I immediately thought of this sub, and wanted to share it here.

So should there be a pay gap? Honestly, in most cases, probably not. Unless a man is actually doing more or higher quality work, pay grades should probably be one area that remains gender neutral. And these days, in most cases, it is. This is just another article to add to our list of facts and data we can cite to the ugly (or unfortunately attractive) feminists who tell us to 'check our privilege,' among numerous other bullshit irrational arguments.

In other words:

"WHAT FUCKING PRIVILEGE, BITCH??"

And that's really all I have to say about it. What do you guys think?


Conclusion:

This is just another useful link for us as we fight the war on feminism. Bravo to Intel for actually doing the statistics. I hope other companies will follow.


[–]TattedGuyser 344 points345 points  (67 children)

"I am calling BS. Take all the women in the company, add up their compensation and divide by the number of women. Do the same for men and compare the two numbers. If they are materially the same, I will agree with Intel. I bet they don't have the guts to do this. But if they did, guess what? Women would be shown to make about 85% of what men make. Likely less if highest paid employees are mostly men."

This one comment just screams the stupidity that is found among feminists. Of course engineer, lawyer and financial staff should make just as much as an assistant or secretary. Holy fucking stupid.

[–]MakeEmSayAyy 136 points137 points  (0 children)

yes but it feeeeellls like women are paid less, so they HAVEE to be

[–]stillbatting1000 89 points90 points  (8 children)

Feminists want victimhood. It alleviates them from personal responsibility

[–]ColdEiric 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Men understand that with choices between cookies and ice-cream, they have to say no to one of them.

[–]hotsweetleather1 27 points28 points  (6 children)

THE DEAD RED IS HERE

When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property.

Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.

White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

[–]wanderer779 9 points10 points  (5 children)

the strange thing is that whites volunteered to do this. I don't know of any other country where the dominant group has discriminated against itself.

The basic problem in any economy is finding a compromise between incentivizing production and having equality. Obviously by hiring based on anything other than merit, your company becomes less productive. It seems to me it would be better to just hire the best engineers and try to even it out through the tax code than to just throw away talent like this.

Imagine a primitive society that implements a policy of having equal numbers of women and men on hunting trips. Then you have less meat for everybody. The women gain nothing by it, unless they have some strange preference for chasing down animals instead of eating them. We are also getting less "meat" in our tribe but it isn't noticed because we have so much to begin with. Basically when you get rich enough a whole lot of stupid ideas are propped up.

I say if you do away with quotas and it's all asians at the elite universities, let it happen. We're just holding back the progress of the human race by not allowing the smartest and best reach their potential, because we don't want to hurt people's feelings.

[–]hotsweetleather1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s.

This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend.

. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist.

The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize.

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory.

Now this stuff is being pumped into the heads of students in various liberal universities.

and later these people occupy media jobs banks political offices. And then we have

"the strange thing is that whites volunteered to do this. I don't know of any other country where the dominant group has discriminated against itself."

[–]rcglinsk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the strange thing is that whites volunteered to do this. I don't know of any other country where the dominant group has discriminated against itself.

You don't have the right notion of groups.

Trigger warning: If you need trigger warnings, this will trigger you.

Malcolm X explains the situation in 1963:

In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites who are now struggling for control of the American political throne are divided into "liberal" and "conservative" camps. The white liberals from both parties cross party lines to work together toward the same goal, and white conservatives from both parties do likewise.

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.

[–]SharK3D -1 points0 points  (2 children)

What about people that bloom at a later age in life? How do elite universities help those people? Or people for whom the classic education system does not work?

I believe that one needs to think differently if they want the human race to progress at the greatest rate possible. There are billions of people who still do not have access to the internet or the leisure to spend much time absorbing its contents - the greatest trove of information in the history of humanity, and doubling at an accelerating pace. Young boys and men across the globe, lost like many of us once were, without access to TRP. I think a lot of potential is wasted that way.

Then there is the case of people gifted with a drastically different consciousness or plagued with mental illness, depending on the case and your perception. In a world where this is still a big taboo subject, and in which the supposedly most affluent countries are also plagued by the highest suicide rates, how do you guarantee that the next Nikola Tesla doesn't end up in a mental institution, drugged out of his brilliant mind? Or dead, especially considering the fact that the suicides are predominantly committed by young men.

I'm not saying its wrong for humanity to nurture its best seeds, but I do think we need to reevaluate how we assess the worth of those seeds, and make sure we reach as many of them as possible.

Cheers

[–]boscoist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Too bad for them. Its always been a game of numbers and you can never accommodate everyone. the true geniuses will find a way to excell regardless. Yea its cruel, but thats how life has always been.

[–]hotsweetleather1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.

Thus EVIL WHITE MEN who is seen as EVIL CAPITALIST.

Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups.

Thus systematic expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

The main Aim is to sink down the white middle class.

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans 53 points54 points  (1 child)

85% would be shocking to me. It's probably more like 60%....FOR MEN.

Meaning that for EQUAL amount of work output, men probably only make about 60% that women do. Men do way more than 25% more work than women at any company I've ever worked at.

[–]hotsweetleather1 12 points13 points  (0 children)

the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history.

Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters.

All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

[–]scottwalkerfan 26 points27 points  (6 children)

all gender pay gap arguments can be won by linking this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox

a good read if you are interested in the rigorous statistics behind why comparing overall averages of diverse groups is a bad idea.

[–]TattedGuyser 10 points11 points  (2 children)

How is that going to win you an argument? Most are way too stupid to understand what's going on in that wiki article. They'll just say something mansplaining or some shit.

[–]TRPhd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's simple, you start with something they can relate to:

"Did you know waitresses make more money than waiters, but restaurant managers make more if they are men?" I have no idea whether that's true, but it moves the frame of the conversation from "all women" to "waitresses", i.e., women of a certain job. Bam, you just explained Simpson's paradox. Throw in an ass-kissing compliment ("women care more about things other than money") and you won the argument. Of course she's always going to stand up for "womankind" when challenged directly, but like so much of what we know about women based on TRP, she won't let it affect her actions (watch what they do, not what they say).

Too many men are obsessed with being acknowledged as the victor instead of staying focused on just getting what they want.

[–]mrrooftops 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a kind of reverse gerrymandering.

[–]hotsweetleather1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a good, and other groups, capital owners, are evil.

In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals.

These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.

Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

[–]Puffy_Vulva 9 points10 points  (3 children)

85%

I just love how their number is NEVER and I mean NEVER consistent. It's in the 60-80% range is all they know. Also I like how people from different countries will use the same number. That would throw me off if I believed in that garbage. Just how likely do you think it is that women in different countries are being payed the EXACT amount less than men? I find that extremely unlikely.

[–]hotsweetleather1 3 points4 points  (2 children)

in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.

In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals.

These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.