The NationStates Feminist Thread

[KirbyFluffle]

I think Chessmisstress might have the right idea.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's even true, but there is much more at stake.
A tax reduction on women's incomes would create an important precedent, and above all it would shape a mental attitude appropriate to the achievement of substantive equality.

I don't see how that's so much easier to accomplish than actually putting in regulations to close the wage gap.

The wage gap is caused by a number of factors.
Paying people less for discriminatory reasons is already illegal.
Regulations to close it would lead to paying women the same as men, despite them working less hours, at more convenient times, part time, in different jobs, with more benefits than men tend to get.
the wage gap is a complete dud issue.

The reason for men earning more is that they are a workaholics.
Men who aren't obsessed with their careers probably earn the same as women, it's just that way more men are obsessed with their careers.
It's the result of discrimination against men, and the pressure to provide and protect.
Forcing companies to pay women the same would either result in huge discrimination against men, or a complete breakdown of the market as men just stopped working as much and still demanded to be paid the same on the basis they are now working as much as women are. (This has merits, but almost certainly would not be agreed to. What is more likely is across the board wage cuts for both men and women.)

[Wallenburg]

I don't see how that's so much easier to accomplish than actually putting in regulations to close the wage gap.

The wage gap is caused by a number of factors.
Paying people less for discriminatory reasons is already illegal.
Regulations to close it would lead to paying women the same as men, despite them working less hours, at more convenient times, part time, in different jobs, with more benefits than men tend to get.
the wage gap is a complete dud issue.

The reason for men earning more is that they are a workaholics.
It's the result of discrimination against men, and the pressure to provide and protect.
Forcing companies to pay women the same would either result in huge discrimination against men, or a complete breakdown of the market as men just stopped working as much and still demanded to be paid the same. (This has merits, but almost certainly would not be agreed to.)

How do you convince yourself that isn't sexist?

[Ostroeuropa]

The wage gap is caused by a number of factors.
Paying people less for discriminatory reasons is already illegal.
Regulations to close it would lead to paying women the same as men, despite them working less hours, at more convenient times, part time, in different jobs, with more benefits than men tend to get.
the wage gap is a complete dud issue.

The reason for men earning more is that they are a workaholics.
It's the result of discrimination against men, and the pressure to provide and protect.
Forcing companies to pay women the same would either result in huge discrimination against men, or a complete breakdown of the market as men just stopped working as much and still demanded to be paid the same. (This has merits, but almost certainly would not be agreed to.)

How do you convince yourself that isn't sexist?

What do you mean? It's entirely factual. Go look at the report from the department of economics (I think that's it. I'll brb.)

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf

Damn. It was the department of labor.
Zoom to summary:

As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether
any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and
men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt
discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that
collectively determine the wages paid to different individuals makes the formulation of policy that will
reliably redress any overt discrimination that does exist a task that is, at least, daunting and, more
likely, unachievable.

You can combine this with stuff like men being more likely to focus on their careers than women are, because of sexist pressure on those men.

[Wallenburg]

How do you convince yourself that isn't sexist?

What do you mean? It's entirely factual. Go look at the report from the department of economics (I think that's it. I'll brb.)

This was TWO posts before yours:

Here you go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ed-by-men/

Not bullshit, just life choices. Make sure to check the Department of Labour report the article cites.

Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 95 cents for every dollar a man makes. (Another interesting fact: Women who are members of unions make almost 91 cents compared to their counterparts.)

One survey, prepared for the Labor Department by the CONSAD Research Corp. during the George W. Bush administration, concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar.

Thank you for revealing this source to me. I will further investigate and hope to find that this is, indeed, the real figure, rather than the 77:100 ratio.

The figure should be 1:1. Saying that the pay gap is less than it has been said to be does not make it go away. If I were to rob a bank, it doesn't really matter if I stole $10, $100, or $10,000,000 dollars. I broke the law. Similarly, it doesn't matter how small the pay gap is unless it is so close that the margin for error includes the 1:1 pay ratio. Women are still underpaid for their work, and that needs to change.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you mean? It's entirely factual. Go look at the report from the department of economics (I think that's it. I'll brb.)

This was TWO posts before yours:

Thank you for revealing this source to me. I will further investigate and hope to find that this is, indeed, the real figure, rather than the 77:100 ratio.

The figure should be 1:1. Saying that the pay gap is less than it has been said to be does not make it go away. If I were to rob a bank, it doesn't really matter if I stole $10, $100, or $10,000,000 dollars. I broke the law. Similarly, it doesn't matter how small the pay gap is unless it is so close that the margin for error includes the 1:1 pay ratio. Women are still underpaid for their work, and that needs to change.

That's an entirely unsubstantiated viewpoint. The department of labor straight up says that no portion of the wage gap can be confidently attributed to discrimination.

The fact is, if your workers work longer, at less convinient times, and just flat out seem more driven, you're going to pay them more.
Perhaps, even more than those factors would normally result in, because you want to keep them as workers.
The wage gap is a dud issue.

If women want to get paid the same as men, they need to become workaholics.
Or, we could stop discriminating against men to turn them into workaholics.

You're asking we pay women more based on ideological suspicion and blind faith. That's ridiculous.

Once again, it is already illegal to pay differently for discriminatory reasons. So what is the problem?

[Wallenburg]

This was TWO posts before yours:

That's an entirely unsubstantiated viewpoint. The department of labor straight up says that no portion of the wage gap can be confidently attributed to discrimination.

The fact is, if your workers work longer, at less convinient times, and just flat out seem more driven, you're going to pay them more.
Perhaps, even more than those factors would normally result in, because you want to keep them as workers.
The wage gap is a dud issue.

If women want to get paid the same as men, they need to become workaholics.
Or, we could stop discriminating against men to turn them into workaholics.

You're asking we pay women more based on ideological suspicion and blind faith. That's ridiculous.

Once again, it is already illegal to pay differently for discriminatory reasons. So what is the problem?

Please show me this statement by the Department of Labor.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's an entirely unsubstantiated viewpoint. The department of labor straight up says that no portion of the wage gap can be confidently attributed to discrimination.

The fact is, if your workers work longer, at less convinient times, and just flat out seem more driven, you're going to pay them more.
Perhaps, even more than those factors would normally result in, because you want to keep them as workers.
The wage gap is a dud issue.

If women want to get paid the same as men, they need to become workaholics.
Or, we could stop discriminating against men to turn them into workaholics.

You're asking we pay women more based on ideological suspicion and blind faith. That's ridiculous.

Once again, it is already illegal to pay differently for discriminatory reasons. So what is the problem?

Please show me this statement by the Department of Labor.

As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether
any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and
men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt
discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that
collectively determine the wages paid to different individuals makes the formulation of policy that will
reliably redress any overt discrimination that does exist a task that is, at least, daunting and, more
likely, unachievable.

Source: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf

By factoring in all the extra shit you get to 95/100.

That final 5 cents is easily explainable as companies viewing THOSE men (The workaholics) as simply more desirable workers than women, because often, they simply are.
Companies will wish to retain such workers and keep them motivated and employed with the company.

The DoL straight up says, it isn't possible to attribute this to sexism. Such a thing is unachievable.
That's basically saying it's impossible.

The wage gap is one issue that has led to feminism hemorrhaging credibility.

Find a woman who doesn't take time off for kids, works overtime at inconvinient hours, does all the shit that a lot of men do, and she will either be paid precisely the same, or will be able to sue for discrimination.
There is NO fucking problem here for women.

It's men who are having the problem, because they are discriminated against in such a way that turns them into workaholics.

[Wallenburg]

Please show me this statement by the Department of Labor.

As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether
any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and
men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt
discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that
collectively determine the wages paid to different individuals makes the formulation of policy that will
reliably redress any overt discrimination that does exist a task that is, at least, daunting and, more
likely, unachievable.

Source: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf

By factoring in all the extra shit you get to 95/100.

That final 5 cents is easily explainable as companies viewing THOSE men (The workaholics) as simply more desirable workers than women, because often, they simply are.
Companies will wish to retain such workers and keep them motivated and employed with the company.

The DoL straight up says, it isn't possible to attribute this to sexism. Such a thing is unachievable.
That's basically saying it's impossible.

The wage gap is one issue that has led to feminism hemorrhaging credibility.

Find a woman who doesn't take time off for kids, works overtime at inconvinient hours, does all the shit that a lot of men do, and she will either be paid precisely the same, or will be able to sue for discrimination.
There is NO fucking problem here for women.

It's men who are having the problem, because they are discriminated against in such a way that turns them into workaholics.

CONSAD is not the Department of Labor. Try again.

[Ostroeuropa]

Source: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf

By factoring in all the extra shit you get to 95/100.

That final 5 cents is easily explainable as companies viewing THOSE men (The workaholics) as simply more desirable workers than women, because often, they simply are.
Companies will wish to retain such workers and keep them motivated and employed with the company.

The DoL straight up says, it isn't possible to attribute this to sexism. Such a thing is unachievable.
That's basically saying it's impossible.

The wage gap is one issue that has led to feminism hemorrhaging credibility.

Find a woman who doesn't take time off for kids, works overtime at inconvinient hours, does all the shit that a lot of men do, and she will either be paid precisely the same, or will be able to sue for discrimination.
There is NO fucking problem here for women.

It's men who are having the problem, because they are discriminated against in such a way that turns them into workaholics.

CONSAD is not the Department of Labor. Try again.

If you bothered to read it, you'd see that the DoL has a foreword endorsing their findings.
If you weren't so disingenuous in trying to cling desperately to a complete lie that feminism has fed you, you might be more willing to concede the wage gap is a dud.

Key part of the foreword:

The following report prepared by CONSAD Research Corporation presents the results of a
detailed statistical analysis of the attributes that contribute to the wage gap and a synopsis of the
economic research that has been conducted on the issue. The major findings are:
There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap.

When coupled with CONSADs conclusions, it becomes inescapable.
That bit of the wage gap not accounted for, CANNOT be attributed to sexism.

[Wallenburg]

CONSAD is not the Department of Labor. Try again.

If you bothered to read it, you'd see that the DoL has a foreword endorsing their findings.
If you weren't so disingenuous in trying to cling desperately to a complete lie that feminism has fed you, you might be more willing to concede the wage gap is a dud.

Key part of the foreword:

The following report prepared by CONSAD Research Corporation presents the results of a
detailed statistical analysis of the attributes that contribute to the wage gap and a synopsis of the
economic research that has been conducted on the issue. The major findings are:
There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap.

When coupled with CONSADs conclusions, it becomes inescapable.
That bit of the wage gap not accounted for, CANNOT be attributed to sexism.

I didn't bother to read the PDF at first because you said it was from the Department of Labor and it came from CONSAD. I will now read this. See you in a couple hours.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Dealing with the issue on the area of taxes seems like preferring to let the crime happen and then deal with it rather than attempt to prevent it - which would involve actually focusing on closing the pay gap rather than compensation for its existence.

That's even true, but there is much more at stake.
A tax reduction on women's incomes would create an important precedent, and above all it would shape a mental attitude appropriate to the achievement of substantive equality.

It wouldn't.

As you cut taxes on women, so would the government have less money to spend on social services, leading to a cut of certain social programs' funding. This is exactly what happens in the United States.

You cannot cut taxes without raising taxes somewhere else, or cut your social programs. If you raise taxes on males, the law will be forced to litigation on the supreme court of the country in which it is implemented and, depending on that country's laws, will be considered unconstitutional (for instance, in the U.S. it would definitely be unconstitutional); if you close tax loopholes the corporations will simply lay off employees and go overseas for business infrastructure. If you cut social programs, depending on the ruling party, you can even see programs that benefit women being slashed.

The policy of cutting on women's taxes is as stupid of a fiscal policy as suggesting to cut taxes on the rich.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's even true, but there is much more at stake.
A tax reduction on women's incomes would create an important precedent, and above all it would shape a mental attitude appropriate to the achievement of substantive equality.

It wouldn't.

As you cut taxes on women, so would the government have less money to spend on social services, leading to a cut of certain social programs' funding. This is exactly what happens in the United States.

You cannot cut taxes without raising taxes somewhere else, or cut your social programs. If you raise taxes on males, the law will be forced to litigation on the supreme court of the country in which it is implemented and, depending on that country's laws, will be considered unconstitutional (for instance, in the U.S. it would definitely be unconstitutional); if you close tax loopholes the corporations will simply lay off employees and go overseas for business infrastructure. If you cut social programs, depending on the ruling party, you can even see programs that benefit women being slashed.

The policy of cutting on women's taxes is as stupid of a fiscal policy as suggesting to cut taxes on the rich.

Cutting taxes is SOMETIMES a good idea, provided you can expect it to reduce costs elsewhere.
For instance, eliminating the tax on somebody buying their first home will probably reduce housing benefit costs, etc.

You could make the argument that the amount of money the state wastes on nonsense feminism could be saved if they just cut taxes for women.
Ofcourse, that would be more feminist nonsense.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It wouldn't.

As you cut taxes on women, so would the government have less money to spend on social services, leading to a cut of certain social programs' funding. This is exactly what happens in the United States.

You cannot cut taxes without raising taxes somewhere else, or cut your social programs. If you raise taxes on males, the law will be forced to litigation on the supreme court of the country in which it is implemented and, depending on that country's laws, will be considered unconstitutional (for instance, in the U.S. it would definitely be unconstitutional); if you close tax loopholes the corporations will simply lay off employees and go overseas for business infrastructure. If you cut social programs, depending on the ruling party, you can even see programs that benefit women being slashed.

The policy of cutting on women's taxes is as stupid of a fiscal policy as suggesting to cut taxes on the rich.

Cutting taxes is SOMETIMES a good idea, provided you can expect it to reduce costs elsewhere.
For instance, eliminating the tax on somebody buying their first home will probably reduce housing benefit costs, etc.

You could make the argument that the amount of money the state wastes on nonsense feminism could be saved if they just cut taxes for women.
Ofcourse, that would be more feminist nonsense.

But then, the question becomes: which programs would be the first to be slashed? And with that, depending on the political party, you will see a lot of people going for what goes with the party line.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Here you go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ed-by-men/

Not bullshit, just life choices. Make sure to check the Department of Labour report the article cites.

Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 95 cents for every dollar a man makes. (Another interesting fact: Women who are members of unions make almost 91 cents compared to their counterparts.)

One survey, prepared for the Labor Department by the CONSAD Research Corp. during the George W. Bush administration, concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar.

Thank you for revealing this source to me. I will further investigate and hope to find that this is, indeed, the real figure, rather than the 77:100 ratio.

The figure should be 1:1. Saying that the pay gap is less than it has been said to be does not make it go away. If I were to rob a bank, it doesn't really matter if I stole $10, $100, or $10,000,000 dollars. I broke the law. Similarly, it doesn't matter how small the pay gap is unless it is so close that the margin for error includes the 1:1 pay ratio. Women are still underpaid for their work, and that needs to change.

How much money you rob from the bank however does change how much the police care. If you steal $10 nothing will happen, if you still $10000000 the FBI will get involved and hunt you down remorselessly.

Similarly, if a paygap is only 5 cents or less, that is hardly actionable.

[Wallenburg]

Thank you for revealing this source to me. I will further investigate and hope to find that this is, indeed, the real figure, rather than the 77:100 ratio.

The figure should be 1:1. Saying that the pay gap is less than it has been said to be does not make it go away. If I were to rob a bank, it doesn't really matter if I stole $10, $100, or $10,000,000 dollars. I broke the law. Similarly, it doesn't matter how small the pay gap is unless it is so close that the margin for error includes the 1:1 pay ratio. Women are still underpaid for their work, and that needs to change.

How much money you rob from the bank however does change how much the police care. If you steal $10 nothing will happen, if you still $10000000 the FBI will get involved and hunt you down remorselessly.

Similarly, if a paygap is only 5 cents or less, that is hardly actionable.

5 cents for every dollar. Say a man earns a 100k salary. That means that a woman in the exact same position with the exact same hours and the exact same workload would earn 95k. I could buy a fucking CAR with that lost salary.

[Ostroeuropa]

How much money you rob from the bank however does change how much the police care. If you steal $10 nothing will happen, if you still $10000000 the FBI will get involved and hunt you down remorselessly.

Similarly, if a paygap is only 5 cents or less, that is hardly actionable.

5 cents for every dollar. Say a man earns a 100k salary. That means that a woman in the exact same position with the exact same hours and the exact same workload would earn 95k. I could buy a fucking CAR with that lost salary.

No it doesn't.
Because if she was in the exact same circumstances, she could sue for discrimination.
Chances are, she isn't in the exact same circumstances, and the man is, in some way, working harder.
When I say that shit, i'm not claiming men are better. Women are living the way people should be living. It's that men are pressured into workaholism.

Like I said, since you can sue for discrimination if your pay is different and you're in the same circumstances and position as a coworker, what is the fucking problem?
No feminist ever answers this.

[Highfort]

How much money you rob from the bank however does change how much the police care. If you steal $10 nothing will happen, if you still $10000000 the FBI will get involved and hunt you down remorselessly.

Similarly, if a paygap is only 5 cents or less, that is hardly actionable.

5 cents for every dollar. Say a man earns a 100k salary. That means that a woman in the exact same position with the exact same hours and the exact same workload would earn 95k. I could buy a fucking CAR with that lost salary.

The problem, again, with this rhetoric is that we can't tell how much of this is a result of sexism and how much is a result of weaker negotiation skills. We should not be propping up women if there's a weakness in negotiation skills among them compared to men.

I would personally like it if negotiation wasn't such a huge part of salaries but that is unfortunately how the market works. To artificially inflate salaries because a group isn't as competitive at negotiating would only discourage workforces from hiring them - why would I hire someone who I KNOW I have to pay more money when I can hire a man and try my luck at bargaining down his salary?

[Byzantium Imperial]

How much money you rob from the bank however does change how much the police care. If you steal $10 nothing will happen, if you still $10000000 the FBI will get involved and hunt you down remorselessly.

Similarly, if a paygap is only 5 cents or less, that is hardly actionable.

5 cents for every dollar. Say a man earns a 100k salary. That means that a woman in the exact same position with the exact same hours and the exact same workload would earn 95k. I could buy a fucking CAR with that lost salary.

As many of the posters above me stated, when we are talking about "paygaps" we must also take in account intangibles such as competitiveness of the individual and the flexibility sought by the employee, that are hard to measure in any raw numbers statistics like wage gaps.

While one such as 72 is stark enough to suggest something beyond intangibles, by the time you get to 95, the difference starts becoming negligible and easily explained away.

[Wallenburg]

5 cents for every dollar. Say a man earns a 100k salary. That means that a woman in the exact same position with the exact same hours and the exact same workload would earn 95k. I could buy a fucking CAR with that lost salary.

No it doesn't.
Because if she was in the exact same circumstances, she could sue for discrimination.
Chances are, she isn't in the exact same circumstances, and the man is, in some way, working harder.
When I say that shit, i'm not claiming men are better. Women are living the way people should be living. It's that men are pressured into workaholism.

Like I said, since you can sue for discrimination if your pay is different and you're in the same circumstances and position as a coworker, what is the fucking problem?
No feminist ever answers this.

It's very hard to prove you have been discriminated against, since most women don't share their contract with a male counterpart.
There, I answered it. One weapon removed from your anti-feminist arsenal, God knows how many to go.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

5 cents for every dollar. Say a man earns a 100k salary. That means that a woman in the exact same position with the exact same hours and the exact same workload would earn 95k. I could buy a fucking CAR with that lost salary.

No it doesn't.
Because if she was in the exact same circumstances, she could sue for discrimination.
Chances are, she isn't in the exact same circumstances, and the man is, in some way, working harder.
When I say that shit, i'm not claiming men are better. Women are living the way people should be living. It's that men are pressured into workaholism.

Like I said, since you can sue for discrimination if your pay is different and you're in the same circumstances and position as a coworker, what is the fucking problem?
No feminist ever answers this.

I have to admit, you have a point.

The fact is, that if two people are in the exact same position, working the same amount of hours, receiving the same amount of benefits, and paying the same amount of taxes, medicare, and social security, and there is a wage gap of 5,000 dollars, the party that has the 5,000 dollars of difference can sue for discrimination or can talk with their supervisor about it and see if it is really because there is a pay gap or because of other factors not being considered such as performance bonuses and other perks in the position.

[Ostroeuropa]

No it doesn't.
Because if she was in the exact same circumstances, she could sue for discrimination.
Chances are, she isn't in the exact same circumstances, and the man is, in some way, working harder.
When I say that shit, i'm not claiming men are better. Women are living the way people should be living. It's that men are pressured into workaholism.

Like I said, since you can sue for discrimination if your pay is different and you're in the same circumstances and position as a coworker, what is the fucking problem?
No feminist ever answers this.

It's very hard to prove you have been discriminated against, since most women don't share their contract with a male counterpart.
There, I answered it. One weapon removed from your anti-feminist arsenal, God knows how many to go.

No, it's more that it's hard to be proved you've been discriminated against when they can reply
"But he works overtime and you don't. He also works longer hours and has been at the company a year longer than you because you took time off to have a kid."

In circumstances where the woman is actually in the same circumstances, it's trivial to prove discrimination, because then the management will have no arguments.

The reason it's "Hard" to prove discrimination, is that most cases of discrimination are bollocks.

Feminists wasting womens money on legal fees by lying to them. Feminism hurts women too.

[Wallenburg]

5 cents for every dollar. Say a man earns a 100k salary. That means that a woman in the exact same position with the exact same hours and the exact same workload would earn 95k. I could buy a fucking CAR with that lost salary.

As many of the posters above me stated, when we are talking about "paygaps" we must also take in account intangibles such as competitiveness of the individual and the flexibility sought by the employee, that are hard to measure in any raw numbers statistics like wage gaps.

While one such as 72 is stark enough to suggest something beyond intangibles, by the time you get to 95, the difference starts becoming negligible.

77:100 is the basic women to men pay ratio. When you factor in women working lesser hours, taking lower-paying jobs, raising children between jobs, etc., then you get 95:100. That means there is still discrimination. Once it is no longer statistically impossible for women to be earning the same as men, then I'll be content.
Unlike Chess...

[Wallenburg]

It's very hard to prove you have been discriminated against, since most women don't share their contract with a male counterpart.
There, I answered it. One weapon removed from your anti-feminist arsenal, God knows how many to go.

No, it's more that it's hard to be proved you've been discriminated against when they can reply
"But he works overtime and you don't. He also works longer hours and has been at the company a year longer than you because you took time off to have a kid."

In circumstances where the woman is actually in the same circumstances, it's trivial to prove discrimination, because then the management will have no arguments.

The reason it's "Hard" to prove discrimination, is that most cases of discrimination are bollocks.

Feminists wasting womens money on legal fees by lying to them. Feminism hurts women too.

See my most recent post, please.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it doesn't.
Because if she was in the exact same circumstances, she could sue for discrimination.
Chances are, she isn't in the exact same circumstances, and the man is, in some way, working harder.
When I say that shit, i'm not claiming men are better. Women are living the way people should be living. It's that men are pressured into workaholism.

Like I said, since you can sue for discrimination if your pay is different and you're in the same circumstances and position as a coworker, what is the fucking problem?
No feminist ever answers this.

It's very hard to prove you have been discriminated against, since most women don't share their contract with a male counterpart.
There, I answered it. One weapon removed from your anti-feminist arsenal, God knows how many to go.

What the fuck are you talking about.

Many people don't have to share their contracts for a position, your contract is the same as the other person's. I don't know where you conduct your business at, but at least from what I have experienced every position at your job has certain terms and conditions for everyone in that job. It is a standarized contract. The same terms you signed up for are the same your co-worker in your division signs up for.

If you feel you are the victim of discrimination you can ask for your employer to conduct an audit, or you can go to court to legally force them to.