Talk:Gender pay gap/Archive1

Society's expectations of men and women
Don't the consequences of society's expectations of men and women cut both ways? Men are more likely to seek jobs requiring STEM skills, but they also are more likely to commit crimes, join the military, and do other stuff that could get them incarcerated, deported, injured, killed, committed to mental hospitals, etc. These types of unfortunate events disrupt men's ability to earn what they otherwise would.

Culture probably plays a role in encouraging men to be the ones who disproportionately get involved in high-risk, low-return activities. But few would complain that this is a form of gender inequality caused by the matriarchy. They would blame the individual men for their decisions, regardless of how society's values and norms influenced their choices. Why, then, wouldn't individual women be blamed for failing to take STEM courses in school? Landmartian (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because not getting a specific job isn't the same as committing a crime(or other serious personal failings of that sort). Believe it or not, there's plenty of movements to try to encourage men to get into disproportionately female professions, like nursing and teaching.  That just doesn't attract ire like women in STEM movements do.  Ikanreed (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is that? Landmartian (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But few would complain that this is a form of gender inequality caused by the matriarchy. Few indeed. You'd have to have a very distorted view of society to believe that. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not all that much of a stretch, though, to think that maybe society cares less about the bloated prison population, or about the casualties of war, because those victims mostly consist of expendable men (and disproportionately black and Hispanic men, too, because of laws and recruitment practices specifically targeting them). The main cause of the high prison population is the drug war, which could be regarded as an outgrowth of Prohibition, which women's temperance unions helped enact. Even today, men (57%) are also somewhat more likely than women (48%) to support marijuana legalization. It makes sense that women would see less of an urgent need to support legalization, since only 15% of those arrested on pot charges are men, despite women's having monthly pot use rates (5,382 per 100,000) that aren't that much lower than men's (9,202 per 100,000). Criminal records for drug charges are harmful to men's careers, but of course no one takes that into account when considering whether men have equal opportunities for success in our society. Landmartian (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying men are not capable enough to make their own decisions as a human being based on their gender? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that men's failings are blamed on them as individuals, while women's failings are blamed on the patriarchy, etc. Landmartian (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In many cases the failings of people can be ascribed to difficulties generated systemically. Today, many theorists postulate a theoretical or shadow Patriarchy as evidenced by measuring the average gender differences in society. But in reality, for all we know, these disparities may be generated by incoherent forces. Giving the cause of all ones problems a name is a human tradition, even if there is more than one cause. Christians say the Devil, Feminists say the Patriarchy, Republicans say government regulation. I say, "god-damn internet."Jackinthebox (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maddox destroys the arguments of the wage gap truthers
https://youtu.be/BDj_bN0L8XM http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

Can we let this myth die already?
 * Why don't poor people just buy more money? 15:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, that's not how it works. See, you just have to want it bad enough and then it'll magically appear! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why we not respond to point? >_< Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point have cardinality < segment. PacWalker 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, general statistics are way too often misused to say or imply things about very specific situations, but that doesn't mean the gender pay gap is all in feminists' heads. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I had a nap and haven't had two cans of Mt. Dew today. Now I can respond to that awful blog or whatever it's supposed to be. Here's the grand rebuttal: It's actually true that the lack of money-saving via women-hiring would occur if there was no pay gap. It's also true, however, that an apple would fall from a tree if there was no pay gap. So, yeah. The issue here is quite clear. 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're ALL just making strawman arguments. I bet you didn't even fully read the blog or watched the video. Maddox also talked about why there is still a small pay gap in both is blog and video.66.163.85.215 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)AnonymousGuest

Diagnosis: Causalation[ link ]
 * Disclaimer: Poe's Law may be in effect (I don't know enough of to accurately discern seriousness/joke ratio and can't be arsed to dig around for something this trivial and boring).
 * With that in mind, I think I'll just go instant Godwin and point out that this link is a reiteration of something already addressed in the article, just like (and here comes Godwin) the posts at Talk:Holocaust denial that also parroted points already debunked in Holocaust denial. Seems like someone haven't A) bothered to actually read the article and B) forgot the good old adage that there are but hey some blogger guy said on YouTube that there's no gender pay gap, must be true, then. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maddox provided sources and evidence for all of his claims (including a government and FEMINIST source), which you never actually refuted. Also, Maddox conversed on why there is still a small pay gap when all variables are accounted for.66.163.85.215 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Guest05
 * Maddox correctly pointed out that Obama painted the .77 statistic in the wrong context. He then makes a bunch of speculations, some of which sound rather plausible and some of which sound rather conspiracy-theory-like, many of which he doesn't cite sourced evidence for as Maddox explicitly admits at one instance, none of which actually disprove the gender pay gap. Now it'd be nice if you actually read the article and attempted to understand the actual concept you're trying to refute/downplay. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A .77 statistic? Dang, I thought Desert Eagles were obnoxiously large. PacWalker 21:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Maddox's article contradicts this one? The contradiction is only in tone. Maddox is calling out faux activists who keep parroting the misinformed line that "women earn 77% of what men earn for the same job" and this article is not saying that. Everyone agrees that the gap narrows if you only consider discrimination. Maddox's theory for the discrimination is that women are afraid to ask for a raise. This article says something similar which is that promotion requests from women are disproportionately denied. Maddox also says that women prefer social work jobs, which have low pay but high importance. This article says the same thing but goes one step further by asking why these important jobs have lower pay.Connor Behan (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To keep it short, Maddox was not saying that the wage gap didn't exist, just that it was misunderstood. That misunderstanding being that a man makes .77 percent more than a woman in the same job. The gap is actually caused by different genders having different jobs that offer different pay. Furthermore, men are statistically reported to have be less satisfied with their jobs than women are, and men more likely ask for raises. There are more men in higher paying jobs like engineering while there are more women in lower paying jobs. Thus, it is more of social problem than an economic problem. Parents need to encourage their daughters to be a little more ambitious and to study hard in hard sciences like mathematics. In addition, sexism could be a factor too, as employers probably turn down women trying to apply for higher paying jobs in favor of men. The overall joke was solid, with Maddox saying he wish this misunderstanding was true because than he could save money on The Book of Manliness. This video can help strengthen feminist arguements since they can use it to better understand reality so that they can bring about the change they want. This video is right up there with the Solution to Sexism in Videogames which is another solid video.RakortheTerrible (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

just because this looked like some amount of time to make
I was reading this site's page on feminism and noticed that feminists believe there is still a gender wage gap. Well, I'm going to provide some evidence of it's nonexistance.

Firstly, this page says that "The '77 cents' formulation is a colloquialism—shorthand for expressing a complex economic truth. Simply put, what it conveys is the fact that, if you average out what all women, working full time, year round, earn and compare that number to what all men working full time, year round, earn, you find that women take home 77 percent of what men do." Now that would be evidence enough for most people, but I know that there will be some of you who STILL believe it, so let's continue on.

This page states "In 2010, women represented 46.7 percent of the United States labor force, a slightly larger share than at the start of the recession in 2007. Overall 71.9 million women were employed or looking for work, representing 58.6 percent of all women aged 16 and over." and later on "Women are nearly twice as likely as men to work part time. In 2010, 26.6 percent of women worked part time compared to just 13.4 percent of men. More women are currently working part-time than were doing so prior to the recession, reflecting the increase in women working part-time because they can't find full-time work. One in five women working part-time are doing so because they can't find full-time work. Prior to the recession, less than one in ten women working part-time were doing so because they couldn't find full-time work." Remember the 77 cents thing? It only included FULL TIME workers, meaning more women than men are going to be excluded from the final 77 cent figure. Continuing on in the page, we have this "Women are nearly 50 percent more likely to work in the public sector than are men with 18.2 percent of employed women working in public sector jobs. Despite this high concentration in a heavily unionized sector — 36.2 percent of those working in the public sector are members of unions compared to 6.9 percent of those in the private sector — women are less likely to belong to a union than are men. In 2010, 11.1 percent of women were union members, compared to 12.6 percent of men."

Now, according to this article from The Telegraph there is a pay gap between public and private sector work.

So there you have it. Proof of the non-existance of the gender wage gap. As some bonus tidbits, here are a few more links to read.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-29/do-overworked-high-earning-men-widen-the-gender-pay-gap http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/why-43-of-women-with-children-leave-their-jobs-and-how-to-get-them-back/275134/ BiscuitCat (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "because when you correct for the discrimination, the discrimination vanishes!" - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said. By the way, a tongue-in-cheek article you started has experienced some recent turmoil. Do you care enough about this to weigh in? Connor Behan (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Undervaluing of women’s work and skills
What does "undervalued" even mean? Valued under what? Why should a job value depend solely on the competence it requires? 13:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a reason work typically done by women ought to be less remunerative than work typically done by men other than "well, because women," I'm sure we'd love to hear it. &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It may just be that the good provided is less scarce. But even if the reason is just "well, because women" it still wouldn't be undervaluing (again, under what? under the True Value?), it would just reflect the consumers/employers values. My point is, value is not objective, so to say something is undervalued means only we disagree with the judgement. Also, because there isn't a baseline, if traditionally female jobs are "undervalued", then traditionally male jobs are "overvalued", which begs the question of why would the employer willingly pay more then she need for a worker, only because he is a man. Sorry if i wasn't clear, english is not my first language.

Women spend how much time on childcare?
" In the United States, women spend about 16.5 hours on domestic work, or 4 hours (32%) more than men and about 60 minutes on childcare, or 34 minutes (130%) more than men." I'm extremely skeptical that women spend 16.5 hours a day on domestic work. I'm extremely skeptical that women spend an hour a week on childcare, unless we're including in that average childless women (or empty nesters like my mother, whose youngest child is 27) who do essentially no childcare at all. And I'm extremely skeptical that either the 16.5-hour figure or the 60-minute figure is over more than a week -- but it doesn't actually say. &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 00:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not 16.5 hours a day, it's 16.5 hours a week. Kind of a huge difference. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So is the 60 minutes also per week? Who are these children who thrive on an hour and a half of care a week? My aforementioned sister and my stepdaughter got more care than that, at least initially &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Naturally you realise that personal anecdotes do not make up anything remotely comparable to statistics. That particular number was provided by the United States Department Of Labor, dated 2014. The other source for the same sentence (note #11) is sadly 404ing right now, and needs to be readded. And as always, find a better or newer source - if possible, in this case - with a different number and we'll update the statistics. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added "per week" and "per day" respectively; the source for the childcare figure paints a more complicated picture but I just woke up and I don't feel like calculating it out right now.&lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 12:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

bias
none of you see any bias in the wording of the article???

like nobody??????


 * That is a vague question. I probably don't see the same bias you do. Lay it out for us, if you please... SmartFeller (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I can see you don't. Well ill go one by one. First edit i added 'potentially' because the original implied it was fact, no evidence of that.
 * second i deleted the sentence for no other reason because as others laid out above, there ARE other reasons.
 * Third paragraph talks about non sexist causes, then swiftly disregards these with a joke by saying if you correct for the discrimination, the discrimination vanishes!''. So i changed the biased wording by adding that the removal of non-sexist discrimination almost accounts for the entire wage gap, which is actually stated earlier in the same paragraph for goodness sake!
 * I then added that some of these discriminations are based on actual gender differences both biological ie motherhood, and ideological, ie: gender preferences for certain jobs, nursing and demolition to name a couple.
 * in line 27 i add  perceived as innate differences because well, thats what they are talking about
 * i then changed a few words in line 52 which more accurately described the topic
 * then i said However it can be argued that it is impossible for anyone to make decisions that are completely immune to the effects of their social enviroment because thats the truth. No one is completely immune from social influence, i didnt delete the current arguement, just added alternative perspective there.


 * that last paragraph in line 80 is complete garbage speculation by the way, even though i didnt delete it Hiiipower (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a start. I might be persuaded to go along with the removal of "for no other reason".
 * As for the rest, line numbers are not all that useful. If you show some before/after quotes, it will be easier for people to see what you mean. SmartFeller (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * you might be persuaded? well thanks so much for your highly rational and unbiased generosity -&mdash; Unsigned, by: User talk:Hiiipower / talk / contribs talk
 * Included is a link to community standards, by making an account you agreed to follow those standards in editing/changing content. No one is keeping you here, no one is forcing you to be an editor, and no one is holding a gun to your head to make changes.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

i figured this would be a rational place to discuss topics,but that fact that not one single edit of mine was kept shows that no consideration was made by any of you, even the spelling mistake i corrected was undone LOL. its clear that any form of dissent is not tolerated by the users of this site talk
 * Thanks for coming. Have a nice day.Petey Plane (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for adding your 2 cents peter! definitely added to the discussion Hiiipower
 * "None of you see any bias in the wording of the article??? like nobody??????" -implying that RW is unbiased. You may want to be more familiar with a site you wish to edit.Petey Plane (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

--- Of course it's biased, it's RationalWiki for fuck's sake. The pay gap has been debunked thousands of times, but facts and reality have no affect on feminism.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 62.199.56.156 / talk 11:38, 29 January 2016‎ (UTC)


 * Oh, I see it's another anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist who literally believes some far-right propagandist manchild on youtube over the whole of academia. I should start a channel: Nuclear Technician for Dummies and pander to MRAs. Even though I've never studied nuclear reactors, I'm sure a 10 minute video on why everything scholars -who have studied this shit for decades in various related fields- are saying about it is wrong will certainly be upheld as the absolute truth on the matter. I mean, I don't grasp any of the complexities -or even the very basics- of nuclear reactors, but that's apparently not important at all. You don't even have to understand any foundational literature, any math, or even have a minor in the subject to speak authoritatively on it! In fact, that's how critique is done in academia: You ignore any and all material on a given subject and instead turn to political idealogues on the Internet who communicate in soundbites and twitter posts for your super-edgy pre-packaged opinions. That way you can feel super-smart and superior without having done any of the hard work of actually learning anything! You are a moron. lol "thousands of times." Yes, the Cato Institute and think tanks like it are totally reputable. Right. 72.181.110.248 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Actual response
People have been reverting you because they think you're wrong.

First, on "correcting for discrimination": our page argues that most of the supposedly "nonsexist" forms of discrimination (eg, men work STEM and women work medicine) are ultimately based in sexism, and so "correcting" for them is misguided.

Second, on social environments: yes, people can go against the grain. But it's harder. And so fewer women than men do what society tells them that they cannot do.

Third, on dangerous jobs: you just rephrased this, not sure why.

16:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that there are almost no non-sexist explainations for the pay gap. I DO get that, but what im saying is that that is horse manure as other have stated in this discussion with many facts and figures.

Second, you just validated my statement, so why then is it not allowed???

third, yes i rephrased because i phrased it better. it originally stated 'Some have argued that women are paid less because men are more willing to do dangerous jobs, which supposedly are paid higher wages, which is true'. My change to 'Some have argued that a contributing factor to the pay gap is the fact that men are more willing to do dangerous jobs, which are often paid higher wages' is just better written plain and simple. It also better frames the oppositions arguement by saying 'contributing factor', rather than the suggestion that it is a answer to the whole pay gap issue, which the original implied. nah mean? Hiiipower (talk)
 * Do you mean no explanations independent of sexual dimorphism? Certainly the low minimum wage works against women since nearly 2 out of 3 minimum wage workers are women. Furthermore, sexism is not the reason minimum wage is kept low. That honor goes to the republican virtue of greedJackinthebox (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Teach the controversy!" Seriously? The opposition are a bunch of anti-intellectual bumblefucks. This isn't an even debate. It's not even a debate. The literature is quite clear on things. If you want to critique the pay gap, do it fucking right. Get in on the conversation. Understand what's being said. Don't just run through, after you saw some second-rate Internet comedian's video, and assume you know dickall about an extremely complex academic subject. The "opposition" in this case isn't even having the same discussion. It's pure propaganda. You might as well go to the creationism article and try to frame that from a neutral point of view. You are not very smart.72.181.110.248 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible explanation: Childbirth and childcare
So I have read about studies (though I am too lazy to look them up right now) that more or less say, women pre-childbirth make about the same or even more than men the same age. And if you look at female CEOs, almost all of them have never had children. Similar things can be said about female politicians, though to a lower degree, as "first lady" is a legit path to power in politics and less so in business. (Though given the recent failures of business leaders, you might ask yourself whether the wives and girlfriends wouldn't have done a better job). Basically the hypothesis is that in addition to all the sexism already mentioned, the mere fact that women actually bring children into this world takes away a lot of productive time. And after birth way more women decide to take a primary role in childcare than men. Now interestingly enough the one major country that has no paid paternity leave does way, way worse on the front of equal pay for females and males than the Scandinavian countries that have rather long paid leave. In addition, childcare systems in Scandinavia are a lot better (and cheaper) than in the US. As a final point on that issue: the GDR had a higher percentage of women in the workforce than west Germany. They also had a lower gender pay gap. And in East Germany early childhood care was state run and free whereas in the West there was no such thing. Pizzameister (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comprehensive analysis takes child-rearing breaks into account; I think those studies you mention might not exist outside of right-wing think tank nonsense. There was a recent Cracked article that included a cite to study that said that the gap was present right from the get-go, before childbirth interrupted anything. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same country(s). I think guaranteed paid leave will certainly not harm women in the getting paid their fair share department... Pizzameister (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why Does It Have To Be All Work Places?
The entire article says that all men are chauvinist because all men support misogynist laws. Isn't that kind of sexist in itself to conclude that all men are naturally the oppressor. I mean why aren't we hearing from the places that don't support the pay gap. Every job I had dosent so why should the pay gap apply to the entirety of workplaces?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The entire article says that all men are chauvinist because all men support misogynist laws." No, it doesn't. You need to fix your inability to read and understand English. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Then why is it so black and white?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only black and white in that science supports the existence of a persistent difference that is attributable to systemic inequalities and unconscious biases. At no point, anywhere in the article, is there anything that can be interpreted to say 'all men are chauvinist' by anyone who isn't a fucking moron. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Then why is the wage gap always seen as a form of male chauvinism?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Then what else would it be?--180.216.68.197 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Entrenched unconscious biases, for one. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was no such thing as blind sexism and that all discrimination is crystal clear.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one of your mistakes. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Biology?
well it is said that "sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive", is it safe to say that because of the aforementioned quote that women are choosy and men has to put in effort to impress? the article did briefly mention it, why not add some more? 24.62.190.179 (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the gender pay gap? Workers aren't selling their eggs and sperm. Annquin (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Opportunity
“”‘If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn't we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity?’[4]

--The answer is no, because encouragement is not an opportunity, neither directly nor indirectly. And if instead we choose to answer yes, than we just redefined opportunity in such a way as to make equality of opportunity utterly impossible, since there is no way to ensure everyone will get the same encouragement.
 * Encouragement certainly affects opportunity, even if encouragement != opportunity. Black males in the 1900s were encouraged to be manual laborers, and faced shunning when they tried to buck this trend -- surely this counts as a reduction in the wages that they can expect and an inequality worth fixing? If so, then unequal gender encouragement seems (to a less extreme degree) to be a form of lost earning opportunity. 23:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How does encouragement affect opportunity? Opportunity is a set of circumstances that makes something possible; keyword being possible, not easy or desirable. Shunning may dissuade someone from taking a course of actions, but it doesn't make impossible to do so. But lets say that encouragement does affect opportunity, and shunning counts as loss of earning opportunity; how can this ever be fixed? Encouragement happens informally all the time, in pretty much every social interaction; it can be something as simple as a smile as opposed to a frown. How do you force people to encourage every demographic in the same way? How do you prevent discriminatory shunning? The only way would be a massive culture shift, but this can't be reliably achieved without a, just as massive, re-education (brainwashing) program. 12:33, 28 March 2016‎
 * It's facile to treat the opportunities open to people in binary terms of possible/impossible when clearly some things are more achievable for some people than others. Cultural barriers have a lot to do with this, especially during young people's formative years.  Culture shift is an ongoing process: look at how much attitudes to women's career aspirations have already changed in the last fifty years or so.  11:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info
 * If opportunities are not limited to formal barriers to entry, but instead include all circumstances that make entry easier, then equality of opportunity becomes the same as equality of outcome, as, of course, every instance of different outcome depends on some circumstances.
 * In a free society, culture shifts in unpredictable ways; there is no guarantee that the current trend toward less prejudice will continue. And crossing our fingers and hoping for culture to go in the direction we'd like is the opposite of trying to solve a problem.--93.42.15.13 (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody on this earth cares about someone else's lost opportunity. That's countiing chickens before they hatch, because had this "discouraged she" been to the math and science classes, we can not say one way or the other if she would have taken to them and done well. We can't say if there would be some other factor which would lower her odds when she joins the class. You can't put a statistical value on an "if if". Why don't we count the riches of African Americans who rebelled from the Southern States and took over the Confederate States of America, and all the riches they would have earned selling cotton to Europe? You see, African Americans are not underprivileged at all. They've got all that hypothetical dinero. Or who should I sue over my lost opportunity, that I could have put 100k into EA in 2011? But I'm serious, if someone can find a lawyer who really believes that or thinks they can get away with making the case that lost opportunity is equal to lost funds, please give me their number. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody on this earth cares about someone else's lost opportunity. That's countiing chickens before they hatch, because had this "discouraged she" been to the math and science classes, we can not say one way or the other if she would have taken to them and done well. We can't say if there would be some other factor which would lower her odds when she joins the class. You can't put a statistical value on an "if if". Why don't we count the riches of African Americans who rebelled from the Southern States and took over the Confederate States of America, and all the riches they would have earned selling cotton to Europe? You see, African Americans are not underprivileged at all. They've got all that hypothetical dinero. Or who should I sue over my lost opportunity, that I could have put 100k into EA in 2011? But I'm serious, if someone can find a lawyer who really believes that or thinks they can get away with making the case that lost opportunity is equal to lost funds, please give me their number. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article needs more information on Remediation
The suggestion of family leave for men with new borns is at least a stab at improving the pay-gap situation by allowing married women to go back to work sooner, unfortunately most US companies do not offer women a significant amount of post-natal leave. There are definitely practical things that could be done to reduce the amount of female poverty in America, which is the real practical issue. Feminists need to push hard to raise the minimum wage as much as they can: there are almost two women earning minimum wage for every man earning the minimum wage in America. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/05/more-women-than-men-earn-the-federal-minimum-wage/ Jackinthebox (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on the Wage Gap
[https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Wage_Gap Because it's hilariously "muh rationals". Plenty of bullshit talking points we should include -- and all the shitty cartoons and questionably funny mejmejs.] also, ED definitely isn't written by a bunch of conservative edgelords, oh no

As just one great example: https://encyclopediadramatica.se/File:Wage_Gap_14.jpg 15:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, comics and infographics are of precisely equal validity to academic sociological research, you essjaydubya! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually that was me being as nice and playful as possible. I'm the one who wrote the article by the by.  I even went so far as to strip off the NSF.gov attributions from some of the images I made where I collected data from.  Don't misunderstand me, I have no wanton intention at all to try and ruin your little myopic perception of wage equality, in fact I think it largely serves in the best interest to keep women complacent and needy; and serves as a monument to the proverbial "patriarchy" that you're inadvertently building with your own shortsighted "good intentions".


 * That's what I love about liberals... they can think from Point A to Point B, but they don't really think any further than that. They're generally completely lacking in multidimensional thought process and are inherently limited to single point sagacity, fixed perceptions and linear thinking.  They never stop to think how their own "good intentions" can be so easily used against them, how quickly their dreams can crumble all apart into the worst of nightmares.  I thank you for the entertainment you've provided me with, however I can't say it's in your best interest (at all) to be citing or linking to anything on ED... not that you'll listen to me of course, but... hey, I always play fair.  ^__^
 * --Onideus (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful. What do you say to this multiple-regression study that looked at men and women in the same fields immediately after graduation and still found a gender gap? 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Um... I'm confused. Your own source debunks itself... "Education and occupational differences between men and women help explain the pay gap."   ಠ_ಠ
 * If you want I can go even further... although keep in mind having your core beliefs ripped all apart is not an especially enjoyable experience, especially coming from something like me. --Onideus (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You literally read no further than the first page. Here's the full quote:


 * Please do explain how your single-line quote mine overturns (as I said) a pretty damn rigorous statistical examination. 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't mean to imply that confirmation bias was at play just then!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how people involved in this discussion show their hand and do things like rant about "the liberals". Your article is gross, Onideus. The header is okay, but then you grease up the slippery slope through all the memes and men's rights talking points. That picture of soldiers carrying gear is a particularly dreadful reach, and clearly aimed at emphasizing a biblical view of female physiology. Sad. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Time to spice things up
FCP is a fan of Maddox! I suspect Onideus might be, too. Drumroll, please...

ITT: Watch and discuss below. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Point A... meet Point B... and that's where Maddox stops. Typical.  You need to look further... look at SPENDING!  When it comes to spending, women run circles around men to the point of near absurdity.  Our entire free market is driven almost primarily to cater to women... meaning the more money you give women... the more they spend, the more that boosts the economy.


 * So Maddox is all like, 'Hrmmm, why on earth would the president be running around spouting off disingenuous bushwa?' ...well that's plainly obvious... you come up with BS excuses to try and force corporations to pay their female employees more than they're working for and in turn you get a direct boos to the economy. Just like raising the minimum wage... because you can't squeeze blood out of a rock.  Granted there are certainly "causalities" of a sort along the way, like small business owners, but for the most part it's a clever, largely unethical means of stimulating the economy... except it likely won't last and it'll probably blow up in our faces in next 5 to 10 years.  :D
 * --Onideus (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Relevant: Hanlon's Razor. 13:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify — who are you shaving with it, exactly? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup in Aisle 77
This article is in dire need of upkeep as about one third of the references don't refer to anything, or are not accessible. e.g., ref#1 requires a paid subscription, ref#3 has no link at all, ref# 4 does not connect to a web page, ref#12 'page not found', ref#14 does not furnish item listed, ref#15 furnishes an abstract only, refs#20, #28, #29, cannot be found, and # 32 is an 'unavailable' Youtube video. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Harder Work
Don't men normally take riskier jobs that have higher rates of death? Men normally take the jobs that are more likely to end up with them in a casket, so understand why such jobs would pay them more which would result in more pay.-- 17:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 12:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)