READ THE VERY FIRST POST.

or this

or this (from Forbes, that well known bastion of leftist propaganda)

First, that's simply not ture. The pay gap is nowhere near 90% either by industry or by l
evel of education.

Second even if it was 99% that's still unacceptable. "Rational reason" or no, people shouldn't be penalised for their gender. It's not reasonable to ask a parent of either gender to work long overtime.

Nurses aren't underpaid. Average pay for a staff nurse is 60k to 72k per year in the US not including overtime.

The pay gap is bullshit too. It was "discovered" by taking the average pay of every job in the US per man and per woman and boom! Women come down on the short end of the stick as they are more likely to be in the service industry and paid under the minimum wage but they make it up in tips.

There is no such thing as a rape culture. There is a culture of fear in the US that is actively promoted by media outlets because it sells.

This guy is just ... bleh.

This is actually the point I'm making: these underlying factors are not separate from the discriminatory effect they have on wage disparity. We do not ameliorate discriminatory practices by imposing equal discrimination on all parties. Rather, we raise awareness and consciousness of the issues impacting men and boys, just as we attend to those impacting women and girls. >> ^davidraine:

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."

I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

I was really tempted to downvote comments for falsehood here, but I think responding to those falsehoods may end up being more valuable. Also because @NetRunner shouldn't have to be the only one arguing in favor of equality.

>> ^Trancecoach:

And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

This is demonstrably false -- In fact, they address it in the clip. Using the most complex models with as many variables as possible, there is still a massive gap in pay that cannot be accounted for by economic class, lifestyle choice, occupation, or any other variable. These studies don't just look at aggregate figures, even though the data is almost always presented that way. When you have two people of opposite gender in the same position, the woman will almost always make considerably less than the man.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Farrell does offer some explanations for the wage disparity and, like me, feels it's unacceptable, morally. We (You, Rachel, Warren, and myself) could all, essentially, cite the very same statistics and studies and draw different interpretations and conclusions from the data which clearly demonstrates the disparity in wages on the basis of gender. While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


Your comment that you can draw different conclusions from the same statistics is meaningless unless you actually do it -- That is, produce your own analysis based on the data or find someone who has. Otherwise it's akin to saying "You can use statistics to prove anything, so we should disregard any conclusions people have drawn from them." You can dismiss any conclusion or evidence in this fashion, and it has no place in a rational discussion.

I haven't read Farrell's work, so I'm going to have to infer his arguments based on what you've written about him. It sounds like what he's presenting is a guide to how women end up making less based on lifestyle choices -- Choosing to stay with a child instead of going to work, choosing not to take a better paying job elsewhere to stay near family, choosing (involuntarily) not to fight as hard for a raise as her male coworkers, etc. This information can be used successfully to avoid making those choices or to mitigate them, and avoid falling into the "lower pay" traps.

This is certainly useful information, but it is not a valid basis for justifying a pay gap. The fallacy with that argument is that it necessarily presupposes that your pay for a particular job should depend on how you got that job. Let's say we have a man from a somewhat wealthy family that traveled a lot after college and so entered the workforce late, received adequate performance reviews, changed companies a couple of times, and now is in his mid-30s as a middle manager in a financial firm. Let's also take a woman from a lower-middle class family who worked hard to get a Masters degree and started at a financial services firm but had to take time off to care for an ailing family member and put her career on hold for a few years to have children, and now in her mid-30s has found herself in the same middle manager position at the same firm.

Given that premise, statistics tell us that the man will almost certainly be making more than the woman -- Possibly even 25% more. You could argue that the man likely has more pull at the company because of his family's wealth and that the woman made poor choices (earnings wise) by putting her career on hold for so long, but the fact is that they are both in the same position doing the same thing. The law doesn't care how your career went and how you ended up in your job; it clearly states that for the same work men and women should be paid equally, and the woman in this scenario is the target of discrimination.

1950s: an average couple. man works, woman stays home. man earns $x a year. cost of a house: let's say 3x

1960-70-80: woman begin entering the workforce. man still earns $x a year (adjusted for inflation), woman prob a bit less. this couple can now outbid other couples on housing. market drives house cost up to 5x

90s - now: market forces now dictate that both partners work. meanwhile, even there has been redress in the gender pay gap, both actually earn less when adjusted for inflation

In short, if you want to be a stay-at-home mom (and there's nothing wrong with that) feminism is not your enemy, capitalism is.

So you just don't buy it, based on your personal experience, right? You're generalizing trends based just on what you've seen and what you've experienced in your own home. This is a logical fallacy based on converse accident. You even say in your second statement, "First of all, maybe my house is different..." So right there you're admitting that your situation may be the exception rather than the rule. And it most certainly is.

First of all, the gender wage gap exists:

1. Women’s Earnings Fall; U.S. Census Bureau Finds Rising Gender Wage Gap
2. Statistics Canada: Average earnings by sex and work pattern
3. Statistics Norway: Gender Gap
4. Swedish National Mediation Office: Report examines gender pay gap

And there are more studies where those came from.

Secondly, in most cases (but certainly not all), women do more child rearing and housekeeping in two-income households. (I know this isn't the '50s. I never said it was, nor even came close to implying it. If it were the '50s then most households would be single-income.)

1. Time Crunch for Female Scientists: They Do More Housework Than Men
2. Working women do more chores than men
3. Women Do More Housework, Men Less Upon Marriage
4. Single women 'do less housework'
5. Married women unite! Husbands do less housework

And so on.

Equality has not been reached yet for most women in most careers and in most households. The video above tells a small part of this story, in an incisive manner. Though some may suggest that it is, it is not sexist to point out sexism, just like it's not racist to point out racism. To live in denial of the facts does not help solve the problem.
>> ^Sagemind:

I was hoping not to get into the whole gender argument but I have to chime in.
First of all, maybe my home is different but...
Yes, I find this comparison way off.
When my kids were babies, I took just as much care of them as my wife and sometimes more so.
I was the one who got up in the night with them, even when my wife was on maturity leave.
I changed the diapers most of the time.
I was working low paying jobs while my wife made a good union wage.
At one point, It was I who had to quit my job to be home with them while my wife worked.
I do almost all of the cooking.
Until my current job, my wife's income almost doubled mine
I could go on and on but the point is, many of my friends are the same. The 50s roles of mom and dad don't exist any more. Life has become a two income home for most of us and many cases, we work extra jobs on the side just to make ends meet. (3.5 income home). In most homes I know, the dads are very active in raising the children and keeping the house clean etc.
I understand this "Men with higher incomes world exists, I've just never seen it. I see many wives and woman in general out there in the work force making the same wage as the men. I know of many men out there that can't get a decent job that pays above poverty level and many more women out there with good union paying jobs. Yes, I've seen some women out there that don't work and stay with the children - out of choice - My wife hates working (as do we all), and would rather be at home full-time with the kids.
Life just doesn't work that way - we have to pay bills in a world where 2, 3 and four income households are becoming the norm. If in some fantastic world, I managed to double my wage and bring home enough money so my wife could quit working and be at home full time, wouldn't that skew the statistics? I would be that man who made more money than the woman, and she would be that woman who (choosing not to work) made less money.
But it doesn't matter, I don't live in a world where a single income can pay for a family of four.
We both work, We both volunteer, We both look after the kids and we both look after domestic chores. We both have the capability to make the full paycheck. I'd say we both have the same privileges of status.
Out of the fist ten friends that come to mind, the wife make more money (or equal amounts) in seven of those families.
In one, the wife doesn't work due to depression and stays home with the kids.
One works part time - and stays home with the kids by choice
And one just makes less money because of the choice of job she chooses.
So, for the average family, I just don't buy it. Maybe it used to be true but in today's world, if one spouse makes less money, it's because they made a choice at some point to either take a lower paying job or didn't train for better.
While there are many excuses, we are way past the days where we can blame domestic life as an excuse to hold women back. Just as there are many excuses as to why some men are the same.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^Maybe you haven't heard, but women still do the majority of child rearing and housekeeping in 2-income homes.
And the score indicates that women make less money not because of their additional responsibilities at home, but because of sexism. Maybe you also haven't heard, but women make significantly less money than their male peers.