DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

 

 

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

 

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

 

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.

 

We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
kathryn

Hollywood Pay Gap

Hey, guys. I've started making short videos on YouTube. This one is about the alleged Hollywood pay gap. Let me know what you think! I'm still new at this and working on the technical side as well as what topics to explore. So, I'm open to all the feedback I can get.  :)

 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good video, but I think you made a mistake at the beginning, when explaining where the 77% number comes from, you said something like, "the income of women is subtracted from that of men"...for those of us who understand this issue, we know what you meant, but if this was new information to someone, it might be confusing.  So I would make sure you are clear about details like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good video, but I think you made a mistake at the beginning, when explaining where the 77% number comes from, you said something like, "the income of women is subtracted from that of men"...for those of us who understand this issue, we know what you meant, but if this was new information to someone, it might be confusing.  So I would make sure you are clear about details like that.

 

I interpreted Kathryn as saying the gender pay gap simply aggregates total wages of men and women and subtracts the differences, without taking into account career choice, work hours, etc. There are also sources she provides in the description if someone wanted more detail.

 

If you're going to suggest someone might be making a mistake, isn't it a bit rude to conceal what you think it was?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I interpreted Kathryn as saying the gender pay gap simply aggregates total wages of men and women and subtracts the differences, without taking into account career choice, work hours, etc. There are also sources she provides in the description if someone wanted more detail.

 

If you're going to suggest someone might be making a mistake, isn't it a bit rude to conceal what you think it was?

sorry I didn't think I was concealing anything.  I just don't think the language she used to explain where that number comes from was that clear or accurate, to someone who has never heard this before.  You interpreted it correctly because you already know, I assume.  I didn't mean to be rude just helpful.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good video, but I think you made a mistake at the beginning, when explaining where the 77% number comes from, you said something like, "the income of women is subtracted from that of men"...for those of us who understand this issue, we know what you meant, but if this was new information to someone, it might be confusing.  So I would make sure you are clear about details like that.

 

 +1

 

It is awesome to see more and more free thinking women out there unplugged from the Matrix and victimhood.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I didn't think I was concealing anything.  I just don't think the language she used to explain where that number comes from was that clear or accurate, to someone who has never heard this before.  You interpreted it correctly because you already know, I assume.  I didn't mean to be rude just helpful.

 

I still don't understand your reasoning for why you think it was a mistake or inaccurate though. I'm sorry that I thought you weren't being honest, and I apologize for coming to that conclusion without evidence, but I'm still sincerely curious what the mistake was.

 

Just to recap, in the video she says the wage gap is determined by taking all of men's earnings and subtracting them from all of women's earnings. What is incorrect or what might you think needs adding to that? I don't think simply saying that something is inaccurate or a mistake without explaining why is very helpful, but that might just be my opinion.

 

I think it might be important for Kathryn to know in more detail what your reasoning is, because there is a balance she probably wants to strike between being accurate without boring the viewer with technicalities that may not be necessary. I think the point of providing the real world example was to make the problem easier to understand in practical terms, and for those interested in the technicalities to have the sources provided in the description.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand your reasoning for why you think it was a mistake or inaccurate though. I'm sorry that I thought you weren't being honest, and I apologize for coming to that conclusion without evidence, but I'm still sincerely curious what the mistake was.

 

Just to recap, in the video she says the wage gap is determined by taking all of men's earnings and subtracting them from all of women's earnings. What is incorrect or what might you think needs adding to that? I don't think simply saying that something is inaccurate or a mistake without explaining why is very helpful, but that might just be my opinion.

 

I think it might be important for Kathryn to know in more detail what your reasoning is, because there is a balance she probably wants to strike between being accurate without boring the viewer with technicalities that may not be necessary. I think the point of providing the real world example was to make the problem easier to understand in practical terms, and for those interested in the technicalities to have the sources provided in the description.

 

Yea good point, maybe I'm wrong or maybe it's not a big deal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea good point, maybe I'm wrong or maybe it's not a big deal.

It's not that you're wrong - it's that you haven't given a reason 3 replies in even after I asked you for one. I think it's rude if you don't take your feedback on someone's work seriously - that's all I was saying. You can take ownership or you can chose not to - it's not hugely important to me what you decide to do. I was just sincerely curious what your reasoning was - or if you had no reasoning, whether you also thought it was rude to say she made a mistake. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning Gentlemen,

I wish to suggest to Matthew that the comment made by RoseCodex has value in spite of being vague in your opinion. If someone says they smell smoke, it is valid, it spite of them not being able to articulate the source of the smoke or fire. All that simply means is further investigation is required.  Repeating the same question over and over is unproductive and may actually discourage RoseCodex from alerting people the next time he "smells smoke."

Typically, text papers written for either technical or persuasive means offer solid references when quotes are made or technical "givens" are sited. A lot of technically minded people are trained to discount that which has not been proven using this method.  When the presenter , Kathryn, spoke about how the number was obtained, it possibly would have seemed more thorough  and therefore more convincing and less vague, had she simply held up a card with the actual mathematical equation written on it.  Bringing this out now is Monday night quarter back type review. She did a great job. For next time she will do better to consider the input brought forth in this discussion. It is constructive feedback.  I really appreciate her going to the trouble to make such a great video.

Have a great day!

Gloria

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for offering that perspective. I want to apologize to Rose and Kathryn. I think I was white knighting, because looking back on Rose's initial comment, he did imply that he wasn't certain so I'm sure it was just a helpful suggestion of his with good intentions. I think I perceived Rose as immediately negative because he was criticizing a woman, and I also think I underestimated Kathryn's ability to handle the criticism on her own, which is obviously not a fair belief about her because she is very capable. I really appreciate both Gloria's (and Rose's) patience to help me reach this conclusion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was fair of you to ask for clarification, but tbh it was just a feeling I had after watching the video once, and then watching that one section again.  Perhaps it was inaccurate to say that she "made a mistake", but moreso that she wasn't as clear as she could have been to explain the subject to newbies.  That's all I was saying.  If you're still following the thread Kat, I'm curious what you think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was fair of you to ask for clarification, but tbh it was just a feeling I had after watching the video once, and then watching that one section again.  Perhaps it was inaccurate to say that she "made a mistake", but moreso that she wasn't as clear as she could have been to explain the subject to newbies.  That's all I was saying.  If you're still following the thread Kat, I'm curious what you think.

 

Okay, this helps a lot. So you had a feeling... So your criticism was basically 'muh feels' but you did conceal it behind the claim that she made a mistake.

 

You didn't say 'I feel you made a mistake' (which would have been hilarious, like you have some sort of spidey sense for mistakes that you don't need to back up). You said ''think.' And didn't provide reasons when asked to back it up.

 

Gloria is a female so this was probably a bit more intuitive to her to agree with your approach of following your feelings. But her analogy doesn't actually apply. If someone says they think there is a fire, and they won't explain why, they're actually just being a bit of a dick.

 

I still of course appreciate the replies, but I don't think it's fair for me or anyone in the conversation if I'm apologizing on a false pretense. I'm glad to backtrack an apologize if my reasoning is incorrect, but that would require someone to take my reasoning and actually rebut it.

 

It is also interesting that you want Kathryn (another female) to get involved in the conversation. I think this is between me and you, so unless anyone else wants to volunteer their opinion, let's keep it that way :)

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew, the word "mistake" jumped out at you, it did not have the same provocative effect on me. I find it more productive to seek out solutions to concerns, rather than dissect the language used to present such a concern; or certainly that was my initial reaction in this case. Ultimately, if the word "mistake" was used, more support should have been offered to question it from a technical perspective. You are correct in that finding (or so I "think" rather than "feel" you are correct) 

 

As to your comments insisting that someone who lacks detail or evident support for a statement or hypothesis is a "dick", is somewhat amusing.   Following your logic, do you proclaim that all persons presenting a question or concern for which they cannot resolve themselves is a "Dick?" Doesn't that undermine all use of diagnostic or legal discovery ,troubleshooting, scientific method, etc.?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big factor that many people aren't aware of in regards to the Hollywood pay gap is that there are a LOT more female actresses than male actors. I used to do headshot photography so often frequented acting events to meet new clients, for every budding new male actor there was at least 10 budding new female actresses. Economics 101, when you have 10x the supply of one resource compared to the other but demand is roughly the same there most certainly will be a price disparity. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew, the word "mistake" jumped out at you, it did not have the same provocative effect on me. I find it more productive to seek out solutions to concerns, rather than dissect the language used to present such a concern; or certainly that was my initial reaction in this case. Ultimately, if the word "mistake" was used, more support should have been offered to question it from a technical perspective. You are correct in that finding (or so I "think" rather than "feel" you are correct) 

 

As to your comments insisting that someone who lacks detail or evident support for a statement or hypothesis is a "dick", is somewhat amusing.   Following your logic, do you proclaim that all persons presenting a question or concern for which they cannot resolve themselves is a "Dick?" Doesn't that undermine all use of diagnostic or legal discovery ,troubleshooting, scientific method, etc.?

 

I think what you are saying in the first part is this: "You are being emotionally reactive"

 

I think my criticism was not an argument, and was also passive aggressive because of particular weasel phrases I used.

 

"If you're going to suggest someone might be making a mistake, isn't it a bit rude to conceal what you think it was?​" (1)

 

 

If I were going to rephrase it, I would have stated more boldly: "I think it is rude to suggest someone is making a mistake without providing reason or evidence to back it up"

 

However, this is still not an argument that I'm making. Also, one definition of mistake is 'a judgement that something is misguided,' in which case I cannot even say in good faith Rose's judgment is objectively incorrect. I think a more sincere approach would have been to ask Rose for clarification.

 

 

I'm sorry that I thought you weren't being honest, and I apologize for coming to that conclusion without evidence, but I'm still sincerely curious what the mistake was.

 

 

 

but that might just be my opinion.

 

 

Yea good point, maybe I'm wrong or maybe it's not a big deal.

 

 (Rose's)

 

that's all I was saying.

 

Above are some examples of weasel language: posing questions to someone else about my own subjective opinions, giving insincere or hasty apologies to relieve anxiety, and playing victim were a few of the examples of what I think are weasel approaches of debating a point with someone else.

 

It is important for me to work on getting rid of this type of language from my vocabulary because good people will be justifiably revolted, and bad people will use it to their personal advantage by attacking the weakness and submission that I offer in my position.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0