Simple question. Do you have the sources that you claim to have that supports the claims your making? Yes or no?

No racist, that would be you citing sources that are open about how they culled their data to fit their agenda, and presenting it as objective as if that’s intellectually honest.

I like objectivity. Apparently that’s an issue to racists.

That’s bullshit. You say you have sources that show a significant wage gap when when factors like experience, education, hours worked, etc have been accounted for. You show me sources where they clearly have not accounted for this in any way and are purely just total salaries/# of workers per gender, and you give me…

I’m not invested in any narrative. If you have legitimate numbers that support what you’re saying I’m all eyes for it. Seriously. I go where the data leads me. Please go ahead and show me a source, and I’ll change my tune accordingly.

If it’s not openly stated, then aren’t you making an assumption that such conversations or thoughts are widespread and a serious problem for an average woman in the workforce today?

These sources seem to be citing the bureau of labor statistics, which is fine and dandy, but it is just raw data taken without context and…

“Much of the reasoning for it is “Well, she’ll have kids, so we’ll factor that in.” It’s an assumption based on - you guessed it - gender roles.”

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Who is saying that and in what context?

Thanks Absent Humanity for reminding us where to turn to when we want the opinion of an overt racist.

Again, my argument was that there’s an earnings gap, not a wage gap, and that when variables are accounted for, it diminishes to a point that it’s within most studies margin of error.

Of course, that isn’t to say there isn’t cases of sexist assholes paying women less, or passing capable women over for promotions. Of…

lol. It’s wonderful that you think I “got schooled” and that the sources AH posted can be considered “facts” when that very source is actually open about its agenda, how it ignored data because it didn’t fit their agenda, and how they thought that was fine they had a “sociological explanation” for it anyways. It’s…

You’re right. It really isn’t a big deal. None of this is a big deal.
I think it’s wonderful that we’ve reached a point where our lives are so great we can spend hours discussing whether or not it’s discrimination to segregate for a showing of a fucking movie.

It’s hard to imagine it’s not discrimination considering this is technically illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. That is, if they were actually preventing males from attending. They’re only strongly suggesting men not attend because they actually have no legal basis to bar men from attending.

Let me put it this…

I’ve been there. The kid will start to sleep more. You will get sleep again some day... for the most part.

Frankly, I can’t disagree with a single statement in your post. Well done. I understand your trepidation to declare victory, because frankly we never can, and never will. It’s human nature, people who don’t want…

Best of luck with it. Try to keep an open mind

Why does this seem like such a dangerous game to you? I know it sounds crazy, but the numbers back it up. Let me put this to you: What’s the country that’s considered to have the most gender equality on the planet? There’s a few arguments here and there but in pretty much everyone’s top 3 countries would be Sweden. Do…

Ohh I’m sorry, did you think that your random blog posts and editorials were credible sources? Why should I have to provide any sources when you haven’t actually provided anything that wasn’t from a blatantly biased source?

EPI’s methodology is clearly terrible. If your data collecting methodology gives you a “clearly…

Honestly, start with the feminist documentary “The Red Pill”. It might change your mind on a few things.

Fair point. So if say, men got together for one night only to discuss discrimination men face or attend a lecture from someone that is discussing men’s issues, and anyone was open to join, that shouldn’t be considered sexist, should it?

How about you ask her?

Wow. Reading really isn’t your thing is it? Overtime wasn’t counted for hourly workers, but it was included for workers who reported their average weekly earnings and hours worked. That’s why you still need to account for the hours worked in a week. Something their methodology willfully ignores. Even then, the study…

You’re not!

No, more like women have the ability to make their own choices. Nothing about “letting themselves become victims”, and actually “they can make their own personal choices without society steering them in directions they do not actually want to go”.

You want sources? No problem: