this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
99 points (81.5% liked)
World News
395 readers
270 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The p value of women just randomly deciding to all work low paid jobs is <.001
Which doesn't say anything. Nobody throws a dart at the board and picks a job that way. It is undeniable that women are often found in jobs like healthcare, retail and education (source). One could have the simplistic take of "just get another job, duh", but a lot goes into career-path decisions from upbringing, to social perception, and opportunity. Things aren't just that simple, so taking such a simplistic formula to draw up a complicated plan is the wrong way to go about it.
So you're saying the simple formula actually measures the complex factors of upbringing, social perception, and opportunity.
You're right! This figure represents a serious inequality in the upbringing, social perception, and opportunities presented to women. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
"So you're saying" followed by nothing of what I said.
I feel like I'm on twitter... If you like replacing other peoples words with your own, just have the discussion in your head. It'll save us all a bunch of time.
Okay, so you're not saying that women's career paths are determined by inequality of upbringing, social perception, and opportunity. Drag is trying to understand. Can you explain what you actually meant to say, and whether you agree with the statement even if you didn't mean it?