elmagicochrisg wrote:
Authors: Christianne Corbett (female) & Catherine Hill (female)
clearly this is an agenda driven study by activist feminists because these are women who study gender, and they couldn't have done any legitimate research due to their obvious biases! Bet they are ugly, lesbians, divorced, PMSing, or all of the above too! Either that or they slept their way into their position and have no real skill!
elmagicochrisg wrote:What accounts for the unexplained gap?
Experimental
evidence confirms that many people continue
to hold biases against women in the workplace,
especially those who work in traditionally male
fields. Thus, there are solid reasons to believe
that gender discrimination is a problem in the
workplace.
Yet discrimination is impossible to measure
directly, and many who discriminate—both men
and women—may not be aware that they are
doing so. For all of these reasons, it is likely that
at least part of the unexplained gap results from
discrimination.
Another possible explanation for the unexplained portion of the pay gap is a gender difference in willingness and ability to negotiate
salary. Negotiating a salary can make a difference in earnings, and men are more likely than women to negotiate their salaries. In part, this
difference may reflect women’s awareness that
employers are likely to view negotiations by men
more favorably than negotiations by women.
Nonetheless, negotiation may account for some
portion of the unexplained gap.
The choice of words they use already shows how serious and solid their study was.
Reasons to believe, likely that, may...
new rule: you can no longer demand "evidence of research" since you clearly have no idea how research articles are written, how claims are forwarded in them, or how to see them from any perspective that isn't colored by your preconceptions.