2,420 karma · joined April 9, 2012
No it isn't. If that were the common understanding, then people would not say they are fighting for "equal pay for equal work". The very existence of the phrase "equal pay for equal work" demonstrates that people do believe (incorrectly) that women are paid less than men for the same work.
No, those things should make the feminists spouting this nonsense ask those questions. Instead, the continue to spew deliberately misleading nonsense, knowing that people are sympathetic to "women get paid less for the same work", but are much less sympathetic to "women choose to work fewer hours".
I find those to be in the minority myself. And those are of course never presented by feminist proponents of the wage gap myth, as those demonstrate that it is a myth.
>Wouldn't addressing the lie include an acknowledgement of wage disparity
It isn't wage disparity, that is the point. It is job disparity. If you want to make a case that women aren't able to get the jobs they want due to sexism, feel free to do so. But don't expect me to do it for you simply because you made a totally unrelated claim.
All available evidence supports that notion. Women are more likely to value other things more than they value financial motives. I am also not suggesting that is the sole cause. Women work fewer hours on average, they avoid dangerous jobs, jobs with long and/or odd hours, and they are more likely to take time off which leads to them having on average less experience.
>If you're a woman that runs into this discrimination, your only choices are to lower your standards for a job, and accept one that is lower paying, or to not work at all.
Or to do the same thing the author did and put "Ms." on your resume if your name is ambiguous.
>because it's far from clear that women have the same opportunity to get the same job in the first place.
Hiring rates don't support your hypothesis.
Yes. The image doesn't show the opposite information as the text. As the text explains, the average of all men's wages increases more than the average of all women's wages. The average of all men and all women's wages is not how you show there is a wage gap. The average of all women work fewer hours than the average of all men, and have less experience.
It seems like you are deliberately choosing to respond with non-sequiturs and strawmen because you don't want to have an honest conversation.
>I've yet to see convincing alternative explanations. All of the evidence points to existence of patriarchy as a social institution.
Just as creationists view all evidence as pointing to the existence of god. If you start with a conclusion, and twist everything to suit that end, you can't reasonably expect people who didn't start with the same bias to agree with your conclusions.
Nobody made that claim, that is my point. Responding to strawmen is not productive, respond to the actual conversation.
>totally provable has statistical and philosophical evidence that shows it exists.
Except that alternative explanations are dismissed. If the "evidence" supports many possible conclusions, then it is not proof of a single specific conclusion like "patriarchy".
>Also, men are more common the higher in company/corporate structures you go
They are also more common the lower you go. Men are more common at both extremes, and ignoring the bottom part is a really common fallacy used to push a particular agenda.
What you described is a conspiracy. Of course feminists don't describe their own conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, they want them to appear legitimate.
It is really simple.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-bigg...
I have no idea why you have such a hard time with the FBI rape stats, googling "forced envolpment" would get you what you want: http://www.good.is/posts/the-fbi-expands-its-definition-of-r...