If a significant portion of the population has a market value lower than the cost for them to have a reasonable quality of life isn't that some kind of fundamental failure condition for society/humanity?
Is there a more rigorous explanation of why they count the probability space how they do? Watching that video I feel like the ordering of the kids and the striking of one of the "b2b2" entries seems wrong to me. If we care which kid was first... which doesn't seem to matter... then the first b2b2 and the second b2b2 seem like they're different and shouldn't "cancel."
Then again... it took me multiple explanations to understand the Monty Hall problem.
The article seems to address that in the second chart. When a woman publishes with only women they get the 9% bump they're supposed to. When they publish with a mixed-gender group they get only 4%, and when they publish with only men they get almost no benefit. Is this what you were asking?
I'm going to copy some of the comments I made over there. Hopefully this is acceptable.
The study does not say there is price discrimination, but it heavily implies it. The WSJ article does say there is discrimination.
First of all, I think the article falls into some kind of Political Correctness trap by claiming that certain products are for boys and others are for girls. Why couldn't a boy want the pink scooter? Why couldn't a girl want red?
Building on that, if we see the pink one as "girls" and the red one as "boys" then it does look like discrimination. However, if we view the red one as "neutral/base color" and the pink one as a less popular "color option" it seems less like discrimination and more like paying for a unique customization. Do we know there isn't a blue scooter priced the same as pink?
The conclusion (of the study) states:
> DCA found, on average, that women pay approximately 7 percent more than men for similar products. Products’ price differences based on gender are largely inescapable for female consumers simply due to the product offerings available in the market.
This seems fundamentally contradictory to me. If the products are sufficiently similar but priced differently, why would women buy the "women's version?" What makes it "inescapable?" If product A is so much better than product B, such that buying Product A is "inescapable," I'd expect a difference of more than 7% in price.
The Wall Street Journal seems to draw the reasonable conclusion in its headline: Women should buy the "men's product."
The title needs a colon or something. Right now it reads like only women involved in Gender Studies pay more for stuff.
The article is pretty interesting. There are a few stark contrasts where you see the exact same item costing twice as much in pink than red.
I think there is an interesting philosophical debate to be had here (which the article implies, but doesn't address): Is this gender-based price discrimination? I'm going to contend: no.
First of all, I think the article falls into some kind of Political Correctness trap by claiming that certain products are for boys and others are for girls. Why couldn't a boy want the pink scooter? Why couldn't a girl want red?
Building on that, if we see the pink one as "girls" and the red one as "boys" then it does look like discrimination. However, if we view the red one as "neutral/base color" and the pink one as a less popular "color option" it seems less like discrimination and more like paying for a unique customization. Do we know there isn't a blue scooter priced the same as pink?
Let's look at the jeans. Are the Men's and women's jeans actually the same? Probably not. I'm guessing the women's jeans are cut much differently. When I was in Boy Scouts I (male, with typical male proportions) bought the "Adult Womens'" uniform because it was cut different and fit me better. I didn't actually notice the price because that was back in the glory days of my parents buying me stuff, but I would have chosen the "womens'" uniform even if it were twice the price.
The conclusion states:
> DCA found, on average, that women pay approximately 7 percent more than men for similar products. Products’ price differences based on gender are largely inescapable for female consumers simply due to the product offerings available in the market.
This seems fundamentally contradictory to me. If the products are sufficiently similar but priced differently, why would women buy the "women's version?" What makes it "inescapable?" If product A is so much better than product B, such that buying Product A is "inescapable," I'd expect a difference of more than 7% in price.
Even if you're right (which I disagree) you need to be way more tactful with this type of thing or you stoke the "programming is misogynist" fire.
Responding more directly:
> "I tried to politely decline"
> she strung him along
It could be interesting to see the exact conversations, but I don't think she "strung him along" as much as just never told him to stop "forcefully enough". Regardless, even if she had been banging the guy, stop means stop. Besides that, she shouldn't have had to decline anything in the first place... This is why you don't ask out women in professional settings: there is no good way for them to say "no".
I'm not sure there is much the conference can really do, especially without risking the same backlash against our author that she is trying to avoid by not exposing him.
It’s possible the conference organizers are simply unjust or don’t understand, but we should consider why, in this particular example, the conference may have had to be unjust. What if cancelling this speaker would be so detrimental it would stop the conference? As an organizer, what would you do? In a situation like this, especially if some money has been collected and things like that, the organizers may not be allowed to make such a significant change due to competing obligations from the people who paid.
Even if they could evict him, how would the conference describe his removal? Couldn't this description cause the same backlash that's keeping our author from exposing him herself?
One question that’s on my mind is: is there anything criminal in his conduct? Could our author get a restraining order against the guy? Maybe our author can get the restraining order against the man, and then just go to the conference and call the police to remove him. That's my best attempt at a fair solution, but do keep in mind it would involve blind-siding the conference with the loss of a speaker. This might be necessary, as it seems the conference doesn't have the power to stop this guy without their hand being forced in this way. Also, I don't really know enough about law to say this plan is remotely feasible, but it’s the best I can come up with.
It seems like in this case there is relatively objective evidence. I agree this is super tricky, but I don't think it has much to do with "he said she said".
I believe the core issue here is that the bad actor has so much clout he cannot be held accountable by anyone involved. I would expect the problem to generalize to way more than just conferences.