LawUntoChaos , 11 months ago

I read it and thought you made some salient points. There's aspects I disagree with and I think we could have an interesting discussion around them. But I don't have the patience to create multiple comments with sources that you have, I've done it all before and really don't want to get down in those reeds. I didn't watch the video either, so I'm going to assume that the video itself was poorly structured.

"There's also a very very good paper critiquing Straus and others' papers"

Could you give me the title of this specific paper (I tried clicking the link but it is saying the connection is not private - if it is the one I am thinking of, there is a good chance that Straus has already responded to it. Here's Straus defending the scale https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22865343/ ). On this point though, I guess it comes down what methodology you feel is better. The organisations you mentioned look at arrest statistics. Whereas papers that find parity look at factors that may be impacting men (such as the theory they are less likely to report, and even less likely to see it as abuse when it is happening to them - some research backs this up). Erin Prizzey who set up the first domestic abuse shelter has been on record saying it is an issue with learned patterns of behaviour, rather than a gendered issue. For instance, was this study covered in your debunking https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261543769_References_Examining_Assaults_by_Women_on_Their_Spouses_or_Male_Partners_An_Updated_Annotated_Bibliography or this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2968709/. There are many studies on this. There are reasons to doubt the CTS measure that Straus employs, but there are also reasons to doubt arrest statistics as men are less likely to be a part of arrest statistics, some would theorise this is because they are less likely to be reported and seen as less serious by society as a whole https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11199-018-0949-x. There are more studies demonstrating this as well, though I would have to find them but here's a couple https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518220300061?via%3Dihub, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630#:~:text=The%20moral%20typecasting%20framework%20proposes,facilitate%20categorizing%20women%20into%20the. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that these aspects may skew the statistics on perpetration rates between men and women.

"And do you think maybe we should prioritize so that jobs on both sides of the spectrum feel an inclination towards have decent pay? Why do we act like education, and nursery has so little value for instance"

In regards to this point. I wholeheartedly agree that education and nursery should offer more pay, but I think there is different value other than financial. It is also worth noting that the market decides the price. There is only costs in teaching and nursery etc. I really don't think it is reasonable to expect their pay to be comparable to companies that make mobile phones (for example) at costs of around £700.00 a pop (that people willingly pay), this isn't so much a decision on what fields are worth more but on market demand, that women make most of the contributions to.

"Gender pay gap reporting refers to the practice of collecting and disclosing data on the difference in average earnings between men and women within an organization or across a particular industry or sector, I don't see an issue with this being enforced."

I do, average pay doesn't really give indication as to the factors. My company (in an attempt to close the gap) a few years ago put my team on the same pay. I thought this was great as it resulted in a pay rise. However, we where we were put on the same pay. My colleague, who had worked her way through the levels and was on more money than men due to the fact she had worker harder was now being paid the same as me who hadn't put that effort in. This wasn't fair on her. I don't believe the mere fact of measuring averages is an effective way of measuring fairness.

I could touch on more of your points but - from your response - it does seem like your responding to a poorly constructed video and I don't have the time or inclination to discuss these fully.

Thank you for your input, however. I found it an interesting read.