Do women have lower incomes (on average) because of discrimination?

[Хahar 🤔]

Obviously as a divorce lawyer you have an advanced understanding of this issue.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Obviously as a divorce lawyer you have an advanced understanding of this issue.

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obviously as a divorce lawyer you have an advanced understanding of this issue.

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

That probably says more about the guys you know than it does about divorce in general.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

Or what?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

Or what?

Or he'll think even less of you that he currently does, if that is possible.  I'd think his meaning was abundantly clear.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

Or what?

Or he'll think even less of you that he currently does, if that is possible.  I'd think his meaning was abundantly clear.

I could honestly care less. Didn't Tiger pay over a 100m to his ex? I would call that getting pretty seriously screwed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I could honestly care less.

[7,052,770]

I thought it was pretty well-established that the answer to the OP question is yes?

Yes. The only people who disagree are Tea Party-types with their heads in the sand and Internet teenagers who've never lived in the real world.

And not that there's anything wrong with being type #2 per se. We've all been there.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

I thought it was pretty well-established that the answer to the OP question is yes?

Yes. The only people who disagree are Tea Party-types with their heads in the sand and Internet teenagers who've never lived in the real world.

And not that there's anything wrong with being type #2 per se. We've all been there.

Nice job insulting those who disagree with you. Anyway as I have said before, women mke less because they choose less dangerous jobs. How many women do you see studying to be a nuclear engineer?

[tik 🪀✨]

I thought it was pretty well-established that the answer to the OP question is yes?

Yes. The only people who disagree are Tea Party-types with their heads in the sand and Internet teenagers who've never lived in the real world.

And not that there's anything wrong with being type #2 per se. We've all been there.

Nice job insulting those who disagree with you. Anyway as I have said before, women mke less because they choose less dangerous jobs. How many women do you see studying to be a nuclear engineer?

Oh. Oh dear.

Perhaps we don't see as many females choosing "dangerous jobs" such as nuclear engineer (note to self: is nuclear engineer a dangerous job? Engineers are usually busy behind desks are they not? Maybe it's dangerous because it involves math?) because being in that field inevitably leads them to interacting with insufferably ignorant, sexist behavior perfectly exemplified by your comment. I had a job for six months working in the steel industry. It was bloody hot in the factory due to the furnaces, you were expected to do lots of heavy lifting, and every day you'd walk out covered in soot. As you might expect, there were basically no women there - and during the group interview process where they described the working conditions all of the girls walked out not wanting to even try. I don't blame them - there are only two results when a woman chooses to work in a factory like that. She's either automatically a lesbian and can expect to be treated with disdain or, if not, can expect to be constantly sexually demeaned behind her back. She'd also likely given the less difficult roles and resented by those of us expected to do the heavy lifting. Any advancement she made would have people questioning whether or not she deserved it or if she was doing something shady. But I'm sure none of that had anything to do with it. It was probably just icky and too hard (that is: her fault).

Anyway, that doesn't have much to do with your overall nonsensical point. These equal pay for equal work debates are built on the common understanding that we are talking about men and women doing the same job with the same experience and qualifications who still, nevertheless, get paid less. As jfern noted, this isn't as true when we're talking about women and men fresh out of university who are childless and inexperienced. It can, in fact, be the opposite. Great.

That's the starting point. As life goes on, women face considerably more disruptions than men because we expect them (and, of course, often they happily choose) to take time off from careers to focus on having children or caring for family members. When women return to the workforce, they've lost ground. Are you ready? I'm going to throw a graph at you.



Then there's the fun fact that, strictly because of often unintentional sexism (I hope), women who ask for raises are not given them as often as men (cite). A man who asks for a raise is assertive and strong as men ought to be. Women? Not so much. That's (again, sometimes unintentionally) viewed as uncomely behavior for a lady.

Perhaps what you meant was that women are more likely to work at jobs that aren't professional or managerial and therefore pay less. This is true. Why this is so could be that these lower paying jobs offer women more flexibility with their busy schedules when they have to juggle caring duties at home. Most people, upon learning that, will breathe a sigh of relief. It's their own fault! Phew! I knew it would be okay and we won't have to change anything. But the solution to that problem involves rather frightening things like requiring businesses and government to provide leave for women (and men) when they start to have families. Women shouldn't have to choose between caring for their children and keeping that high-salary, personally fulfilling job. We should be letting them take time off for a while and welcoming them back to the same work and pay as before.

But businesses wouldn't like that sort of inefficiency being introduced. You know what? Tough sh**t. When someone takes an extended leave from their job, someone has to fill in. That work either gets spread around or several people have to be hired to come in a fill in. That's good for the economy. Hurray! I'm glad I've changed your mind.

[dead0man]

These equal pay for equal work debates are built on the common understanding that we are talking about men and women doing the same job with the same experience and qualifications who still, nevertheless, get paid less.

That's the starting point.

Except it never is.  When these discussions come up in real life or in the media or in DC it always starts with the fact that women make 77% what men make.  A little honesty at the start from the other side would go along way in my book.

[Ban my account ffs!]

These equal pay for equal work debates are built on the common understanding that we are talking about men and women doing the same job with the same experience and qualifications who still, nevertheless, get paid less.

That's the starting point.

Except it never is.  When these discussions come up in real life or in the media or in DC it always starts with the fact that women make 77% what men make.  A little honesty at the start from the other side would go along way in my book.

Women do this thing where they get all bitchy and bloated and then crap out a kid and are expected to care for it.  And in today's society, having a kid often means "start over" for women at work.

They're not getting raises... they don't really have job security... and they're losing a lot of potential income.  And we are such a nice society that we saddle the mother with a disproportionate amount of the costs (compared to most of human history).

Dead0man, I'm sure you're the magical exception to this.  The one guy who took paternity leave or something because your government job allowed it, so because of that equal pay isn't an issue.  (I'm making assumptions here... like you make all sorts of less visible assumptions in your hollow argument)

A little honesty from the start would be nice. 

[dead0man]

oh now you've done it

[Хahar 🤔]

Blacks have lower income on average as well. What do you want us to do?

Take action to combat discrimination against black people, obviously.

[nclib]

Yes (D).

I realize that some of it is by choice, but even choices can be influenced by discrimination. If women are expected to do more than half the domestic work, they may not want as much responsibility at work. If women are expected to be less pushy, they may be less likely to ask for raises. If women are advised towards low-paying jobs, they may not choose a field that pays well.

This issue is not the choice to be a mother, as fathers actually get more money than childless men. Even if one takes the perspective that mothers should do more childcare than fathers, and thus can take on less responsibility at work, this still doesn't add up.

[Sol]

I could honestly care less.

That's not how that works...

[Antonio the Sixth]

I could honestly care less.

That's not how that works...

Enlighten me please. I know I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think I need to be one to realize that anyone who says "I could care less", when what he means is the exact opposite of that, is an illiterate idiot.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's an idiomatic expression, albeit not one that I would use. Francophones wouldn't understand.

No. It's not an idiomatic expression. It's a gross logical mistake. One that should be systematically pointed out and result in the public shaming of the person who used it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Is it really an idiomatic expression, though? I've never read it as ironic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's an idiomatic expression, albeit not one that I would use. Francophones wouldn't understand.

No. It's not an idiomatic expression. It's a gross logical mistake. One that should be systematically pointed out and result in the public shaming of the person who used it.

It doesn't follow the same logic as the phrase that it evolved from. So what? This is English. There is no Académie anglais. People communicate as they please.

Oh for God's sake, not this bullsh*t. Of course language evolves and everything. But words have well-accepted meanings, and if you use them to mean the exact opposite of what they're supposed to, you're not an innovator, you're just an illiterate. I'm pretty sure most decent Anglophones would agree with me.

[Oakvale]

Antonio, people use "literally" to mean "not literally" all the time and that's not a crime against The Language or whatever. I literally don't see why is this any different. Americans can speak however they want.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

we speak english yes we do we speak english how's about youse

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, people use "literally" to mean "not literally" all the time and that's not a crime against The Language or whatever. I literally don't see why is this any different. Americans can speak however they want.

I loathe the people who misuse "literally" just as much. Seriously, there are some "idiomatic expressions" that just make no f**king sense.

[Lurker]

Antonio, people use "literally" to mean "not literally" all the time and that's not a crime against The Language or whatever. I literally don't see why is this any different. Americans can speak however they want.

I loathe the people who misuse "literally" just as much. Seriously, there are some "idiomatic expressions" that just make no f**king sense.

"Literally" doesn't annoy me that much. "Could care less", on the other hand, is a crime against humanity.