"Why is it always gender studies used as the example?"
Because it is the most preposterous field of study. The entire concept is so ridiculous you can't help but use it as an example. Its an extreme like the Google janitor, the McDonald's coffee, the Hoodie in the dark self-defense killing, or the robber who gets injured robbing a house suing the homeowner.
I don't care what gender you feel like you are. Gender is part of physical reality. I don't even care about your chromosome mix because that is a model we came up after observing the physical reality of gender. You start with observing physical reality, if your tests and hypothesis (such as our models associating chromosomal mixes) don't match the physical reality you change what has been proven to be a flawed model not the physical reality.
What you most definitely do not do is undermine everything written and recorded by redefining the word gender itself from the meaning that has always applied.
A person can have feelings that don't match reality. Everything we assume follows from that reality can also be false. What can't be false is the actual physical reality. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A hermaphrodite is a hermaphrodite. You can figure out which someone is by looking at their junk at birth and absolutely nothing can or will ever make the answer different. Feeling like you aren't the gender you actually are is akin to thinking you are a chicken. Feeling like you don't fit societal definitions of what your gender is supposed to be like well that is an entirely different ball of wax for which the blame most likely falls on society.
People who want to self-mutilate or be mutilated surgically because of their feelings are mentally ill. In an individual case maybe the answer is just to go ahead and let them have whatever cosmetic surgery they want. That is a question I leave to doctors but it won't actually change their gender and neither will hormone pills or changing their manner of dressing. The fact is that we as a society have a lot to answer for and a lot of fix so that we stop making people feel like the kind of man or woman they actually are isn't a man or woman respectively so that they don't have this disconnect with reality.
Gender is a reference to your birth junk, nothing more, nothing less. You ARE a man or women (or hermaphrodite) based on your condition at birth. Maybe you are a man who likes fashion, dresses, makeup, tear jerkers, and in every other way identifies with the culture we've built around women and hate the culture we've built around men. That makes you a different and less common sort of guy, not a woman. That isn't an opinion, it is simple objective reality. It is true, it will always be true. Man and woman are just words, labels they can't be innately wrong because they don't mean anything other than objective definition, your junk at birth, that we've attached to them.
Yes, there is the issue of the best way to treat these people who we've already broken to make them as comfortable as possible but the most important focus should be on not breaking more and the rest of us need to at least agree to not debate objective reality if we are going to do that. The current efforts seem best targeted at confusing future generations and gender confusing as many of them as possible to cater to a tiny minority group of mentally ill people. I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I'm pretty sure that isn't it.
"In this case Google had proposed some changes, looked at them and noticed that they would create unfairness for men, and decided not to do them."
In this case Google applied changes that people like you applauded and people like me protested and the evidence on closer examination showed that no amount of bias could cover how disparate the result was. That is the problem with solving imaginary balance problems, it leaves things unbalanced.
"Oh look, the "capitalist" assumes that people are paid according to how better they are and not according to how much leverage they have over management (a combination of several factors, being "better" is just one of them)"
I don't know about that guy and having leverage over management is luck but you make your own luck. The ability to make your own luck is the primary criteria of "better" in the worth paying more for and promotion sense because it tends to translate as duties and role changes. Ideally you want the people who are best at making their own luck to shift up to the place where that manufactured luck translates into making you as much money as possible.
That guy who perfectly shapes all the pegs and holes with precision each and every time... he is better at his job but that isn't necessarily going to translate into being better at any other job. He is probably giving you the most value right where he is and being paid as little as you can while retaining him.
Better than all level 4's, sure, better than some? Maybe not. What about someone whose skills rate level 4 but is a good level 4 who has been in position for 10 years. Should that person not make more than someone who took up the job yesterday? Should someone with six months experience in a level 4 position make as much as either one? What about that person who took up the job yesterday but has 10 years experience being the equivalent of a level 4 at a competitor and caught the eye of someone at Google? It might even be about robbing the other company as much as wanting the level 4 his dev skills might be 4 but he's been strategically effective. Should Google have no ability to leverage its deep pockets and engage in strategic decisions on salary?
What about someone who is extremely talented but will continue to stay in position forever contentedly at a fraction of their peers salary? Why should Google have to pay them more when Google could use those funds to gain someone less passive, perhaps aforementioned strategic hire?
True meritocracy is that because you deliver you are in a position to strongarm the boss into paying you more but if you don't deliver the boss strongarms you.
The problem is that there is more to the equation than work performance. You might be a single earner home with kids and suddenly your risk level vs when you were a single guy is dramatically different.
The first two we should correct for, the first might even justify a protected class it is so strongly attached to discrimination. Discriminating against hipster beards is just common sense.
Something to keep in mind you assume everyone making six figures is a "leader" is that median rent for a one bedroom apartment in SF was just reported as over $3600/mo. That means you need at least $10,800/mo NET salary to get through a rental management companies 3x rent requirement. So that is at least $170k/yr not for a high priced apartment, but a median apartment in SF.
Where I come from being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment on your own counts as just out of college or entry level professional.
Granted, elsewhere in the country $170k/yr is a solid salary but it is hardly comparable to leadership. Depending on what type of role you are filling this might feel like the moon but it isn't the moon.
"What if the whole point of your favoritism is based on some perceived need beyond the job?"
Of course it is. You don't promote people based on effectiveness in their current job. That would be shooting yourself in the foot. You promote people based on abilities that make them suited to better jobs.
"So what should I do? Demand equal payment? Because we ARE doing the same thing, with arguably the same success."
Yes. Then compete on a level playing field for the job and may the best person win. That is what those of us in the US want. Don't be foolish enough to do it alone or at work through. Have someone else start a petition to that effect.
""This person negotiated better" isn't a valid excuse either, unless the job is salary negotiation."
That is backwards. Companies don't pay what is fair and shouldn't. They pay the least they can pay and acquire and retain the talent for as long as they need to. They need the poorly negotiated low salaries to subsidize the people in strong positions who demand better than market rates.
" Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned"
I've seen too much metric hacking to go by these things. An inexperienced newbie might close ten fold or even a hundred fold the number of tickets while the more experienced person might target the issues that cause a multi-million dollar client to be retained or prevent the loss of one or in some cases might be dramatically harder cases that require research and months to solve.
Because it is a legitimate comment and not a redundant, troll, or flamebait. People who mod those down are doing so out of bias rather than valid criteria. "The people" who mod down both share the same bias and inability to tolerate comments which run counter to that bias.
"Now we get to watch people who claim to be feminists in that they believe in treating women and men equally will not in any way whatsoever fight against women being paid more than men."
Of course not, after all it is only fair with all that special treatment men get.
The ladies feel like they are being paid less and how dare Google suggest their feelings aren't valid?!!! I expect they'll correct this correction within a couple weeks.
Well, either way, lots of population decrease because the food source dries up will help counteract both problems. So it could be either or some combination of the two and it's still a correction cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
"Society has yet to find value with gender studies degrees."
HR
"Why is it always gender studies used as the example?"
Because it is the most preposterous field of study. The entire concept is so ridiculous you can't help but use it as an example. Its an extreme like the Google janitor, the McDonald's coffee, the Hoodie in the dark self-defense killing, or the robber who gets injured robbing a house suing the homeowner.
I don't care what gender you feel like you are. Gender is part of physical reality. I don't even care about your chromosome mix because that is a model we came up after observing the physical reality of gender. You start with observing physical reality, if your tests and hypothesis (such as our models associating chromosomal mixes) don't match the physical reality you change what has been proven to be a flawed model not the physical reality.
What you most definitely do not do is undermine everything written and recorded by redefining the word gender itself from the meaning that has always applied.
A person can have feelings that don't match reality. Everything we assume follows from that reality can also be false. What can't be false is the actual physical reality. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A hermaphrodite is a hermaphrodite. You can figure out which someone is by looking at their junk at birth and absolutely nothing can or will ever make the answer different. Feeling like you aren't the gender you actually are is akin to thinking you are a chicken. Feeling like you don't fit societal definitions of what your gender is supposed to be like well that is an entirely different ball of wax for which the blame most likely falls on society.
People who want to self-mutilate or be mutilated surgically because of their feelings are mentally ill. In an individual case maybe the answer is just to go ahead and let them have whatever cosmetic surgery they want. That is a question I leave to doctors but it won't actually change their gender and neither will hormone pills or changing their manner of dressing. The fact is that we as a society have a lot to answer for and a lot of fix so that we stop making people feel like the kind of man or woman they actually are isn't a man or woman respectively so that they don't have this disconnect with reality.
Gender is a reference to your birth junk, nothing more, nothing less. You ARE a man or women (or hermaphrodite) based on your condition at birth. Maybe you are a man who likes fashion, dresses, makeup, tear jerkers, and in every other way identifies with the culture we've built around women and hate the culture we've built around men. That makes you a different and less common sort of guy, not a woman. That isn't an opinion, it is simple objective reality. It is true, it will always be true. Man and woman are just words, labels they can't be innately wrong because they don't mean anything other than objective definition, your junk at birth, that we've attached to them.
Yes, there is the issue of the best way to treat these people who we've already broken to make them as comfortable as possible but the most important focus should be on not breaking more and the rest of us need to at least agree to not debate objective reality if we are going to do that. The current efforts seem best targeted at confusing future generations and gender confusing as many of them as possible to cater to a tiny minority group of mentally ill people. I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I'm pretty sure that isn't it.
"In this case Google had proposed some changes, looked at them and noticed that they would create unfairness for men, and decided not to do them."
In this case Google applied changes that people like you applauded and people like me protested and the evidence on closer examination showed that no amount of bias could cover how disparate the result was. That is the problem with solving imaginary balance problems, it leaves things unbalanced.
"Oh look, the "capitalist" assumes that people are paid according to how better they are and not according to how much leverage they have over management (a combination of several factors, being "better" is just one of them)"
I don't know about that guy and having leverage over management is luck but you make your own luck. The ability to make your own luck is the primary criteria of "better" in the worth paying more for and promotion sense because it tends to translate as duties and role changes. Ideally you want the people who are best at making their own luck to shift up to the place where that manufactured luck translates into making you as much money as possible.
That guy who perfectly shapes all the pegs and holes with precision each and every time... he is better at his job but that isn't necessarily going to translate into being better at any other job. He is probably giving you the most value right where he is and being paid as little as you can while retaining him.
Better than all level 4's, sure, better than some? Maybe not. What about someone whose skills rate level 4 but is a good level 4 who has been in position for 10 years. Should that person not make more than someone who took up the job yesterday? Should someone with six months experience in a level 4 position make as much as either one? What about that person who took up the job yesterday but has 10 years experience being the equivalent of a level 4 at a competitor and caught the eye of someone at Google? It might even be about robbing the other company as much as wanting the level 4 his dev skills might be 4 but he's been strategically effective. Should Google have no ability to leverage its deep pockets and engage in strategic decisions on salary?
What about someone who is extremely talented but will continue to stay in position forever contentedly at a fraction of their peers salary? Why should Google have to pay them more when Google could use those funds to gain someone less passive, perhaps aforementioned strategic hire?
True meritocracy is that because you deliver you are in a position to strongarm the boss into paying you more but if you don't deliver the boss strongarms you.
The problem is that there is more to the equation than work performance. You might be a single earner home with kids and suddenly your risk level vs when you were a single guy is dramatically different.
The first two we should correct for, the first might even justify a protected class it is so strongly attached to discrimination. Discriminating against hipster beards is just common sense.
That is so sexist. You have no idea how large the breasts are on those underpaid men after all the stress eating they've done!
Something to keep in mind you assume everyone making six figures is a "leader" is that median rent for a one bedroom apartment in SF was just reported as over $3600/mo. That means you need at least $10,800/mo NET salary to get through a rental management companies 3x rent requirement. So that is at least $170k/yr not for a high priced apartment, but a median apartment in SF.
Where I come from being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment on your own counts as just out of college or entry level professional.
Granted, elsewhere in the country $170k/yr is a solid salary but it is hardly comparable to leadership. Depending on what type of role you are filling this might feel like the moon but it isn't the moon.
"What if the whole point of your favoritism is based on some perceived need beyond the job?"
Of course it is. You don't promote people based on effectiveness in their current job. That would be shooting yourself in the foot. You promote people based on abilities that make them suited to better jobs.
"In such cases, companies often give across the board raises to keep staff happy."
ROFL. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
"So what should I do? Demand equal payment? Because we ARE doing the same thing, with arguably the same success."
Yes. Then compete on a level playing field for the job and may the best person win. That is what those of us in the US want. Don't be foolish enough to do it alone or at work through. Have someone else start a petition to that effect.
""This person negotiated better" isn't a valid excuse either, unless the job is salary negotiation."
That is backwards. Companies don't pay what is fair and shouldn't. They pay the least they can pay and acquire and retain the talent for as long as they need to. They need the poorly negotiated low salaries to subsidize the people in strong positions who demand better than market rates.
" Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned"
I've seen too much metric hacking to go by these things. An inexperienced newbie might close ten fold or even a hundred fold the number of tickets while the more experienced person might target the issues that cause a multi-million dollar client to be retained or prevent the loss of one or in some cases might be dramatically harder cases that require research and months to solve.
Not all work is equally valuable.
Because it is a legitimate comment and not a redundant, troll, or flamebait. People who mod those down are doing so out of bias rather than valid criteria. "The people" who mod down both share the same bias and inability to tolerate comments which run counter to that bias.
That isn't a troll, it is just the facts.
Note, the same people modding this down also modded down the exact same argument made with regard to pay disparity in favor of men.
"Now we get to watch people who claim to be feminists in that they believe in treating women and men equally will not in any way whatsoever fight against women being paid more than men."
Of course not, after all it is only fair with all that special treatment men get.
Oh sure now that the ladies are making more.
The ladies feel like they are being paid less and how dare Google suggest their feelings aren't valid?!!! I expect they'll correct this correction within a couple weeks.
Well, either way, lots of population decrease because the food source dries up will help counteract both problems. So it could be either or some combination of the two and it's still a correction cycle.
It's a philosophical hijacking by GNU people who are butthurt their OS (Hurd) sucks and everyone uses Linux. Try to ignore it.
Yeah but at the same time I recall Linus holding off on 4.0 so he could get more into it.
And in the sane world both the kisser and the kicker don't go to court or jail and both should be able to contribute code if the code is good.
For anyone having a hard time keeping up. The old CoC said to be nice.