This is why affirmative should remain in tact

[7S]

All your arguments depend on stereotypical roles for working mothers. It doesn't matter if a women's career is delayed by childbearing. A women who works 2 years, takes 1 off for childbirth, then works 2 more years should equate to a man who has worked 4 years.


This competely ignores the reality of business.  You can't expect someone who takes time off to be in the same position at the end of 4 years of (disrupted) work, especially if they're devoting less time per week to the job (which is usually the case).

You can argue that traditional gender roles are "stereotypical", but they're still the reality, and they logically impact success outside the home.

A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)

Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure.

These constant sports analogies (Whites and the NBA) are not analogous. Football player salaries are also largely dependent on marketability. The sports public is not majorly interested in seeing women play football.

Because women can't really play football very well.  Just like women who are focused on the home can't devote as much time to their career, and usually end up being somewhat less successful as a result. 

Also, "production labor" does take into account the so-called "pregnancy affect," as opposed to "reproduction labor," which is the number of childbearing years. Production labor is the contribution to paid labor as mentioned before.

? 

What about the fact that women often focus on the home more even after they return to work?

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

See above.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

Again, women focus more on the home than men.  You can argue that this is wrong, or blame the husbands, but it doesn't change the reality.  And this is the primary reason women end up achieving less (on average) at work.  I imagine women who devote as much time to the office as men do achieve far more comparable results. 

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

[7S]

I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

It might not make sense using quotas, but it makes perfect sense for AA.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.
[/quote]

You did say that in a prior statement: "...single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts."

[PNym]

I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

It might not make sense using quotas, but it makes perfect sense for AA.

If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.

You did say that in a prior statement: "...single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts."

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

[PNym]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

[7S]

If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

One my favorite misconceptions about Affirmative Action. You do have to have to be comptent to benefit from AA. Any other system is a quota.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

[7S]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  

[7S]

??

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

Because it still supports his position? 
[/quote]

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

[7S]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  

Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

[7S]

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

I think it is.

I don't doubt u do.

[PNym]

If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

One my favorite misconceptions about Affirmative Action. You do have to have to be comptent to benefit from AA. Any other system is a quota.

Candidates for positions in a company will always be a mixed bag, and different HR departments will have a different idea what qualifications are most important for the role that the candidates are competing for.

The HR departments will have a better idea what qualities are desired and what are not, and in what proportions, than someone who is pressuring the company to pass an AA policy.

It may very well be that the culture of a company is such that hiring any woman would disrupt the group dynamic. One example of this would be hiring for Chippendale dancers, although I'm sure there may be others. It's better to let the company's management, rather than an unaccountable 3rd party, decide which candidates could best contribute to their bottom line.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

Even though my assertion can't be deductively proven, most assertions cannot be deductively proven, so that point doesn't weaken my assertion in particular. Most assertions are given as knowledgeable due to the preponderance of evidence that supports the assertion, not because they are deduced from relationships to other assertions.

For example, if I came across a man holding a bloody knife and standing next to a dead woman lying on the ground with a bloody knife wound in her throat, that observation doesn't deductively prove that the man killed the woman, but it would strongly support an assertion that he did.

This is clearly not the same type of reasoning that characterizes the argument "All dogs are mammals. Since Spot is a dog, Spot is a mammal."