| As for your quote from the US Department of Labor (based on contestable independent private research) that finds ways to attribute "some" of the wage gap: this is nonsense that justifies the persistence of feminism. The average is not where the problems lie - it's the fact that very often men are paid significantly more to do the exact same job as women. |
Averages describe the aggregate. They are an effective means to compare sets of data. If the averages balance out then it also means in some cases, women are paid more than men for the same job. It sounds like you're just bitching about exceptions. Well, that's the real world. It's not flat and uniform, it's messy.
| It's the same ass-backwards thinking that lead people to point out that women score - on average, again - lower on the SATs. Of course they do; they represent a far larger portion of examinees. |
So some score higher if numbers by sex are adjusted. What's your problem?
| Finally, as far as your "equal" comment - no sh*t. I thought there were separate categories because of boobs. Get a grip, man. Physical attributes aside, sex should have no bearing whatsoever on one's rights. So where's your "equality" argument really going? Huh? Do you hold a welterweight fighter in higher regard as a person than a featherweight? |
In judicial affairs perhaps they should be equal; the issue is complicated so I do not yet have an opinion on that. I believe our legal systems actually afford them privilege over men. As far as physical equality goes, well, we all need to get real here don't we? If they are physically different, on average, then no one should expect equal opportunity to translate into equal outcome.
| Why on earth physicality has anything to do with a conversation about equality f*cking goes right over my head. So, please, sigh at me again and give me some insight, would you? |
Heh! Your butthurt amuses me.