Equal Pay Day

[Libertarian California]

Maybe we should ignore labels and promote by merit.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

I feel it's odd that people claim the pay gap doesn't exist when there have been hundreds of studies on it with many reputable economists agreeing that it does indeed exist. Even the most conservative source, the Cato Institute, claimed it existed but "was only" 5 cents while the most liberal sources say it is 23 cents but don't factor in things like differences in education, time for maternal leave and so on. I think in order to solve the pay gap we need to copy some policies of other nations. For example paternal leave like in Sweden, this is only common sense and best for both parents and child as having both parents around to raise the child the first few months will allow the parents to get to know their child and will lessen the workload on stay at home mothers as they now have the dad there to help them and this also will narrow the gap as now most good fathers will take time off of work and while it probably will not be as much as the mother it will be enough to close the pay gap even further. We also need to actively pursue corporation that violate both Civil Rights Acts as we currently allow corporations to blatantly discriminate against religion even though the Civil Rights Acts both prohibit such behavior

[Ostroeuropa]

I feel it's odd that people claim the pay gap doesn't exist when there have been hundreds of studies on it with many reputable economists agreeing that it does indeed exist. Even the most conservative source, the Cato Institute, claimed it existed but "was only" 5 cents while the most liberal sources say it is 23 cents but don't factor in things like differences in education, time for maternal leave and so on. I think in order to solve the pay gap we need to copy some policies of other nations. For example paternal leave like in Sweden, this is only common sense and best for both parents and child as having both parents around to raise the child the first few months will allow the parents to get to know their child and will lessen the workload on stay at home mothers as they now have the dad there to help them and this also will narrow the gap as now most good fathers will take time off of work and while it probably will not be as much as the mother it will be enough to close the pay gap even further. We also need to actively pursue corporation that violate both Civil Rights Acts as we currently allow corporations to blatantly discriminate against religion even though the Civil Rights Acts both prohibit such behavior

We're not saying it doesn't exist. We're saying we don't care because it isn't unfair. It's an ideological tactic by bigots and organized narcissists to attempt to drive up womens pay without actually bothering to look at the reasons its lower. That many people fall for it because
"Well feminists said it so it must be true!" is a condemnation of their own ability to evaluate evidence.

[Kaylea]

you produce a source which cites it as probably unknowable, but then claim that it's not unfair and that it's all a deception, and that anyone who believes in it is stupid...

and they're the narcissists... MRA logic.

[Risottia]

You have two prerequisites for achieving an effective equal pay.
First, a law mandating wage equality: same work in same level with same age of employ => same hourly wage.

The problem, though, is that quite often women don't achieve the same levels and the same age of employ that men do. That's why quite often the society requires or encourages women to spend most of their time at home caring for the family. A recent study about Italian working women (Italy is the G8 country with the highest difference between male and female employment rate) underlined that only 3% of the female managers have kids, against a 60% of their male colleagues. Basically, the lack of support for families in the form of accessible public care for kids and family (public kindergartens, full-time schools) and the lack of mandatory PATERNITY leaves forces the working women into a strong handicap at work, undermining their possibilities to achieving effective equality with their male colleagues - when not into choosing to abandon their career and revert to being stay-at-home mothers.

Basically, to achieve actual gender equality on the working place, you need to level the playing ground, and that can be done only through legal prescriptions about the whole society, not just the labour contracts.

[Ostroeuropa]

you produce a source which cites it as probably unknowable, but then claim that it's not unfair and that it's all a deception, and that anyone who believes in it is stupid...

and they're the narcissists... MRA logic.

If it's unknowable, whence the conviction that it's discrimination?
Oh that's right. It's imagined.

Imagined slights are a prime symptom of narcissism, as is assuming that everything is about you somehow.

[Ostroeuropa]

You have two prerequisites for achieving an effective equal pay.
First, a law mandating wage equality: same work in same level with same age of employ => same hourly wage.

The problem, though, is that quite often women don't achieve the same levels and the same age of employ that men do. That's why quite often the society requires or encourages women to spend most of their time at home caring for the family. A recent study about Italian working women (Italy is the G8 country with the highest difference between male and female employment rate) underlined that only 3% of the female managers have kids, against a 60% of their male colleagues. Basically, the lack of support for families in the form of accessible public care for kids and family (public kindergartens, full-time schools) and the lack of mandatory PATERNITY leaves forces the working women into a strong handicap at work, undermining their possibilities to achieving effective equality with their male colleagues.

Basically, to achieve actual gender equality on the working place, you need to level the playing ground, and that can be done only through legal prescriptions about the whole society, not just the labour contracts.

Balancing paternity leave is perhaps the most important one. It makes stay-at-home fathers more viable.
So the question becomes, why aren't women asking their husbands to be stay at home fathers, or why aren't men agreeing to do it?

For the first:
Hey guys, maybe if feminists would shut the fuck up with the narrative about males being rapists and violent sacks of shit, women might ask their partners to stay home with the kids more.

As for the second:
Hmm, well maybe if men weren't made to feel paranoid around children because of the narrative of them being violent sacks of shit and worrying about how people will perceive them, they might have more experience with children and... hey wait a minute...


I make no bones about the fact that the current feminist movement is an active opponent to equality because of the mannerism of it's argument and the members in it who are complete fuckwits. That isn't all members, ofcourse.

[72o]

The entire pay gap debate has been poisoned by feminist bullshit. There is basically zero evidence of wage discrimination based on sex.

[Kaylea]

You have two prerequisites for achieving an effective equal pay.
First, a law mandating wage equality: same work in same level with same age of employ => same hourly wage.

The problem, though, is that quite often women don't achieve the same levels and the same age of employ that men do. That's why quite often the society requires or encourages women to spend most of their time at home caring for the family. A recent study about Italian working women (Italy is the G8 country with the highest difference between male and female employment rate) underlined that only 3% of the female managers have kids, against a 60% of their male colleagues. Basically, the lack of support for families in the form of accessible public care for kids and family (public kindergartens, full-time schools) and the lack of mandatory PATERNITY leaves forces the working women into a strong handicap at work, undermining their possibilities to achieving effective equality with their male colleagues - when not into choosing to abandon their career and revert to being stay-at-home mothers.

Basically, to achieve actual gender equality on the working place, you need to level the playing ground, and that can be done only through legal prescriptions about the whole society, not just the labour contracts.

they should ban pay secrecy. you can't tell if you're being discriminated against without even knowing your colleague's pay.

If it's unknowable, whence the conviction that it's discrimination?
Oh that's right. It's imagined.

Imagined slights are a prime symptom of narcissism, as is assuming that everything is about you somehow.

Many studies control for all lifestyle variables (parental leave, part time/full time, sector differences, education, etc) and still find a gap that can't be accounted for. Outside of the significant amounts of women who feel they are overlooked because of their gender, you can never know for certain that an employer is prejudiced unless they admit it.

[Ostroeuropa]

You have two prerequisites for achieving an effective equal pay.
First, a law mandating wage equality: same work in same level with same age of employ => same hourly wage.

The problem, though, is that quite often women don't achieve the same levels and the same age of employ that men do. That's why quite often the society requires or encourages women to spend most of their time at home caring for the family. A recent study about Italian working women (Italy is the G8 country with the highest difference between male and female employment rate) underlined that only 3% of the female managers have kids, against a 60% of their male colleagues. Basically, the lack of support for families in the form of accessible public care for kids and family (public kindergartens, full-time schools) and the lack of mandatory PATERNITY leaves forces the working women into a strong handicap at work, undermining their possibilities to achieving effective equality with their male colleagues - when not into choosing to abandon their career and revert to being stay-at-home mothers.

Basically, to achieve actual gender equality on the working place, you need to level the playing ground, and that can be done only through legal prescriptions about the whole society, not just the labour contracts.

they should ban pay secrecy. you can't tell if you're being discriminated against without even knowing your colleague's pay.

If it's unknowable, whence the conviction that it's discrimination?
Oh that's right. It's imagined.

Imagined slights are a prime symptom of narcissism, as is assuming that everything is about you somehow.

Many studies control for all lifestyle variables (parental leave, part time/full time, sector differences, education, etc) and still find a gap that can't be accounted for. Outside of the significant amounts of women who feel they are overlooked because of their gender, you can never know for certain that an employer is prejudiced unless they admit it.

What they feel isn't relevant to reality. What you feel about why someone acts a certain way has absolutely no baring on why they acted that way.
It's assuming that your understanding of why people act a certain way is the reason they did it.
(Incidentally, thinking that it does is a symptom of: wait for it, fucking narcissism. "I feel like you did x because y. Therefore, you did x because y")

As for those studies, you're welcome to link one.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Narcissistic Horde:



An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
(It's almost hilarious.)

Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships

A lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)
(May be why they show such disdain for psych arguments about gender.)

Difficulty with empathy
("What about the menz?")

Problems distinguishing the self from others (see narcissism and boundaries)
(You insulted me. This is an insult against all women.)

Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
(Textbook.)

Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
(Explains their tactics and why they have massed together like a blob. Shaming eachother into joining the horde of narcissists.)

Haughty body language
(Ahah)

Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
(Textbook.)

Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
(Textbook.)

Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
(Think about all the victims of their little pr stunts.)

Pretending to be more important than they really are

Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
(Getting the picture yet?)

Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
(Oh dear.)

Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
(It's getting a little disturbing now.)

Denial of remorse and gratitude
(Well. That was fun.)



I'm betting someone, somewhere, once made a bad argument as a feminist and while angry, shamed a narcissist into joining the movement.
It was all downhill from there.

[Kaylea]

they should ban pay secrecy. you can't tell if you're being discriminated against without even knowing your colleague's pay.



Many studies control for all lifestyle variables (parental leave, part time/full time, sector differences, education, etc) and still find a gap that can't be accounted for. Outside of the significant amounts of women who feel they are overlooked because of their gender, you can never know for certain that an employer is prejudiced unless they admit it.

What they feel isn't relevant to reality. What you feel about why someone acts a certain way has absolutely no baring on why they acted that way.
It's assuming that your understanding of why people act a certain way is the reason they did it.
(Incidentally, thinking that it does is a symptom of: wait for it, fucking narcissism. "I feel like you did x because y. Therefore, you did x because y")

As for those studies, you're welcome to link one.

The one you linked yourself?

lol, all suspicion is narcissism. your bias and bitterness really is starting to get absurd... and calling people narcissists is not proof either way.

[Kaylea]

The Narcissistic Horde:



An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
(It's almost hilarious.)

Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships

A lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)
(May be why they show such disdain for psych arguments about gender.)

Difficulty with empathy
("What about the menz?")

Problems distinguishing the self from others (see narcissism and boundaries)
(You insulted me. This is an insult against all women.)

Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
(Textbook.)

Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
(Explains their tactics and why they have massed together like a blob. Shaming eachother into joining the horde of narcissists.)

Haughty body language
(Ahah)

Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
(Textbook.)

Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
(Textbook.)

Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
(Think about all the victims of their little pr stunts.)

Pretending to be more important than they really are

Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
(Getting the picture yet?)

Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
(Oh dear.)

Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
(It's getting a little disturbing now.)

Denial of remorse and gratitude
(Well. That was fun.)



I'm betting someone, somewhere, once made a bad argument as a feminist and while angry, shamed a narcissist into joining the movement.
It was all downhill from there.

You sound so crazy right now.

[Ostroeuropa]

What they feel isn't relevant to reality. What you feel about why someone acts a certain way has absolutely no baring on why they acted that way.
It's assuming that your understanding of why people act a certain way is the reason they did it.
(Incidentally, thinking that it does is a symptom of: wait for it, fucking narcissism. "I feel like you did x because y. Therefore, you did x because y")

As for those studies, you're welcome to link one.

The one you linked yourself?

lol, all suspicion is narcissism. your bias and bitterness really is starting to get absurd... and calling people narcissists is not proof either way.

No, not all suspicion is narcissism. There are plenty of ways to discuss gender equality without doing it the way the feminist movement has been doing it the past few years.

And ok, we'll use my one.

Well then, i'll ask you this;

I am fully prepared to admit that some companies are undoubtably letting the side down by paying women less for discriminatory reasons.
Are you prepared to admit that some (In my opinion, probably the vast majority) of companies are paying women less for reasons that are NOT discriminatory, and are related to lifestyle choices, and that demanding equal pay in the manner you are demanding amounts to special privileges for women in those companies?

[Kaylea]

The one you linked yourself?

lol, all suspicion is narcissism. your bias and bitterness really is starting to get absurd... and calling people narcissists is not proof either way.

No, not all suspicion is narcissism. There are plenty of ways to discuss gender equality without doing it the way the feminist movement has been doing it the past few years.

And ok, we'll use my one.

Well then, i'll ask you this;

I am fully prepared to admit that some companies are undoubtably letting the side down by paying women less for discriminatory reasons.
Are you prepared to admit that some (In my opinion, probably the vast majority) of companies are paying women less for reasons that are NOT discriminatory, and are related to lifestyle choices, and that demanding equal pay in the manner you are demanding amounts to special privileges for women in those companies?

I don't see how anyone is being compelled to do anything that they haven't been obligated to do before. Equal pay for equal work. People who work in the same position for the same hours won't get different pay except for work related reasons. That's what I have in the UK and what I think you're getting in the US. I personally haven't advocated something different to that.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, not all suspicion is narcissism. There are plenty of ways to discuss gender equality without doing it the way the feminist movement has been doing it the past few years.

And ok, we'll use my one.

Well then, i'll ask you this;

I am fully prepared to admit that some companies are undoubtably letting the side down by paying women less for discriminatory reasons.
Are you prepared to admit that some (In my opinion, probably the vast majority) of companies are paying women less for reasons that are NOT discriminatory, and are related to lifestyle choices, and that demanding equal pay in the manner you are demanding amounts to special privileges for women in those companies?

I don't see how anyone is being compelled to do anything that they haven't been obligated to do before. Equal pay for equal work. People who work in the same position for the same hours won't get different pay except for work related reasons. That's what I have in the UK and what I think you're getting in the US. I personally haven't advocated something different to that.

Oh ok. So when will women be giving up their work related benefits? After all, it's equality, right?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, are you suggesting the corporations give an effective pay rise to all of their employees by giving males a gold bar and females an extra 500?

You get 500 bucks and a gold bar.
I get 1000 bucks.

Whining endlessly about the 500 bucks when you are completely entitled to give up the gold bar and get that 500 bucks, but stubbornly refusing to do so, is wanting to have your cake and eat it.
It's childish nonsense.


If you want to come out and argue corporations need to pay their employees more, i've actually got a lot of time for that.
But endlessly fucking whining about how they need to pay YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC more is just blatant sexism.


If you want to get people on board, then your rhetoric shouldn't be
"Women are getting paid less! We're so butthurt about it!"
It should be

"Corporations aren't paying us enough. We can fix this, and along the way, fix gender inequalities, by demanding that they give males more benefits and females more pay."

And then, doubtlessly, males will exchange the benefits they do not want for more pay, thus re-introducing the raw-wage gap.

And then the nonsense starts ALL OVER AGAIN. Nonetheless, i'm willing to have the nonsense continue if it means we actually get pay rises for workers.

[Kaylea]

Oh ok. So when will women be giving up their work related benefits? After all, it's equality, right?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, are you suggesting the corporations give an effective pay rise to all of their employees by giving males a gold bar and females an extra 500?

You get 500 bucks and a gold bar.
I get 1000 bucks.

Whining endlessly about the 500 bucks when you are completely entitled to give up the gold bar and get that 500 bucks, but stubbornly refusing to do so, is wanting to have your cake and eat it.
It's childish nonsense.


If you want to come out and argue corporations need to pay their employees more, i've actually got a lot of time for that.
But endlessly fucking whining about how they need to pay YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC more is just blatant sexism.


If you want to get people on board, then your rhetoric shouldn't be
"Women are getting paid less! We're so butthurt about it!"
It should be

"Corporations aren't paying us enough. We can fix this, and along the way, fix gender inequalities, by demanding that they give males more benefits and females more pay."

And then, doubtlessly, males will exchange the benefits they do not want for more pay, thus re-introducing the raw-wage gap.

And then the nonsense starts ALL OVER AGAIN. Nonetheless, i'm willing to have the nonsense continue if it means we actually get pay rises for workers.

What work-related benefits? I hope we're not talking about maternity leave... (Sure make that parental leave instead, whatever). What type of society wants to block women from joining the workforce by not allowing women maternity leave...

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh ok. So when will women be giving up their work related benefits? After all, it's equality, right?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, are you suggesting the corporations give an effective pay rise to all of their employees by giving males a gold bar and females an extra 500?

You get 500 bucks and a gold bar.
I get 1000 bucks.

Whining endlessly about the 500 bucks when you are completely entitled to give up the gold bar and get that 500 bucks, but stubbornly refusing to do so, is wanting to have your cake and eat it.
It's childish nonsense.


If you want to come out and argue corporations need to pay their employees more, i've actually got a lot of time for that.
But endlessly fucking whining about how they need to pay YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC more is just blatant sexism.


If you want to get people on board, then your rhetoric shouldn't be
"Women are getting paid less! We're so butthurt about it!"
It should be

"Corporations aren't paying us enough. We can fix this, and along the way, fix gender inequalities, by demanding that they give males more benefits and females more pay."

And then, doubtlessly, males will exchange the benefits they do not want for more pay, thus re-introducing the raw-wage gap.

And then the nonsense starts ALL OVER AGAIN. Nonetheless, i'm willing to have the nonsense continue if it means we actually get pay rises for workers.

What work-related benefits? I hope we're not talking about maternity leave... (Sure make that parental leave instead, whatever). What type of society wants to block women from joining the workforce by not allowing women maternity leave...

Flex time and such are often taken as well, in addition to other work related benefits including better healthcare plans. (Men have a certain disregard for their health in that regard, and would prefer they just get the cash. This isn't a case of "Hurp womens healthcare costs more durp." that's misogynistic nonsense. I'm saying women are opting for flat out BETTER healthcare plans than men are in a lot of cases.)
I've no idea why in the US women are choosing benefits a lot more than men are. Nonetheless, they are CHOOSING to do it.

No society would like that except sexist ones. What we're saying is that because you get those benefits, either males need equivalent benefits, or you need to accept that they are paid more as a result. Anything less is childish nonsense, whining endlessly about how you aren't allowed to have your cake and eat it too. Either argue everybody gets two cakes, or stop being so goddamned entitled.

[Estormo]

If they do the same job, they deserve equal pay. But it has to be the same job.

[Divair2]

Mandate it. Easy.

[Pope Joan]

If they do the same job, they deserve equal pay. But it has to be the same job.

Then we have to make sure that the pathways which lead to that job are equally accessible to all qualified persons. Which, of course, they are not.

[Shilya]

If they do the same job, they deserve equal pay. But it has to be the same job.

No, not even that.
If they deliver the same results in the same job, they deserve equal pay. Because as it turns out, that is what matters - results.

[Nazi Flower Power]

This isn't a case of "Hurp womens healthcare costs more durp." that's misogynistic nonsense. I'm saying women are opting for flat out BETTER healthcare plans than men are in a lot of cases.)

Actually, women do rack up more medical bills on average. Nothing nonsense about it. (Unless the statistics have recently changed... I am going by what I learned a few years ago when I was employed in the health insurance industry.)

That's probably why they are more likely to be interested in health coverage.

[Draconikus]

This isn't a case of "Hurp womens healthcare costs more durp." that's misogynistic nonsense. I'm saying women are opting for flat out BETTER healthcare plans than men are in a lot of cases.)

Actually, women do rack up more medical bills on average. Nothing nonsense about it. (Unless the statistics have recently changed... I am going by what I learned a few years ago when I was employed in the health insurance industry.)

That's probably why they are more likely to be interested in health coverage.

I have to query whether you're not putting the cart before the horse.

'Women rack up more healthcare bills, so they get a better health plan.'
Or is it 'Women have better health plans, so can afford to rack up more healthcare bills' ?

[Ereria]

What I don't seem to understand is that are they considering the fact that some men maybe have a higher paid position and higher education. A secretary in a comapny shouldn't demand the payment of a CEO