Wage gap and maternity leave?

I was discussing with someone why the wage gap is dishonest and the different factors involves. Heres their response. Thoughts ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DUpgoayBPJc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

Involved*

>First line: everything is a result of the patriarchy
You can't debate against someone with an unfalsifiable claim like muh patriarchy. Men and women are not and will never be "equal" they are vastly different not only in physical ability but in the ways they think. If you look at Scandinavia where they have the most policies in place to balance the genders all they have done is make them more distinct. If you remove environmental influences you maximize the difference between men and women you don't get rid of it because people are not blank slates. Even having fully paid maternity leave will not eliminate the wage gap because women still work less hours. Why should we want women working overtime? Why have women become less happy not more as we have destroyed the nuclear family in the name of feminism?

Feminist academics cling to muh wage gap because they are completely useless as a field. The wage gap myth has been BTFO for decades.

youtube.com/watch?v=DUpgoayBPJc

Feminist "patriachy" is a total joke religion any wrong is the fault of this garbage concept.

...

...

Should women work jobs that make them happy and leave them time to also raise children or should they work stressful jobs that pay more and leave them unable to raise a family? All of this garbage is rooted in critical theory. It's just a means to justify wealth redistribution.

>patriarchal society
>patriarchy
>patriarchy
Take it behind the barn.

Why the fuck even bother talking to or associating with these people? They'll never get it, cut them from your life.

Patriarchy is a total joke concept do not accept it or you are losing the argument instantly. Women were not oppresed through out time. Women and Men both had very hard lives until recently. The only valid claim of muh feminism is voting rights. Is it oppression that women would stay at home taking care of the children while the man went out to walk a mile deep into a coal mine, swing a pick for 12 hours, and then walk a mile back out? Was the feudal era oppression when women could be rules of the nation and the common folk (men and women) were working in the fields just to survive?

>"If men and women were equal, men would spend more time with their kids and be stay at home dads, men would take smaller jobs because their wives could be working."

that whole sentence just screams "equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity." also, if you made every man work less and every woman more, wouldn't that result in a wage gap but reversed? that doesn't sound like their definition of equality to me.

>"...there are women that I know personally who work more hours than men in the exact same positions yet make less money."

right, so we're just supposed to take their word on that one? for the sake of argument, you should've asked what kind of jobs these people hold.

Folks seem to bitch and moan about this, yet never present any details regarding the type of job, position or wage associated with this claim.

OP here. She also said this >Sex is biological and gender is a social construct and that is a fact. It is sad that our society has put so much emphasis on what is masculine and what is feminine because it divides us. The idea of the typical masculine and feminine roles is a problem in society and something that people are trying to change because gender roles shouldn't be a thing.
The LGBT movement has paved the way for a lot of change and I totally understand that it is confusing. It's confusing for me, and that makes sense because I'm a heterosexual woman. However I think it is ignorant to take what this person is saying and perceive it as "you can identify as an emotion". They mean you identify with whatever gender you feel like you are. So this person feels non-binary, I feel that I'm a woman, you feel that you're a man (right? Or is that not something you feel?) and the only difference is that our genders are accepted by society. This person's isn't, and it isn't fair of us to laugh at, make fun of, or devalue their opinion simply because their concept of gender is foreign to us.
On another note, feminism is about equality and I apologize for those who have misrepresented it! I encourage you to surround yourselves with feminists who represent it accurately. I personally feel threatened/disgusted by those who call themselves meninist because the idea of feminism is that we already live in a patriarchal society and we need to create a system that is fully equal, whereas meninists support the subordination of women and a patriarchal society. They also don't support the change and equality of this generation because men already do control basically all aspects of society. If a group of feminists or individual feminists you know are man hating, just be educated enough to know that isn't feminism, and we all can't be grouped into that category. Also, if you support gender equality then you my friends are also feminists! Welcome to the club;)

>deserve
Why do libtards throw this word around so much?

She's an insane rad-fem just call her a science denier and move on. If Gender is a social construct how can trans people exist? Would they not automatically be what ever gender they are raised as? You can not win this argument. Feminism is this woman's religion.

>"Biology as you call it is just a scapegoat that the patriarchy used to rationalize and justify sexism across the board"

if she hasn't lost all credibility already, this is it. up until the last few years, sex and gender have been synonymous. when you start changing definitions like this, people are bound to be confused. The patriarchy hasn't done shit, it's the modern day Sociology courses that are changing definitions of things like gender and racism.

here's the thing though: gender being a social construct actually makes sense if you think about it. sex is very involved with human interaction, but society has evolved to the point where going around checking people's privates is a form of harassment. gender acts as the drawbridge between social interaction and sexual interaction because now, if i meet you and you dress and act like a woman i can safely assume you have a pussi. how is that bad exactly?

with that said, even liberals and feminists don't follow their own definitions most of the time. they use sex and gender interchangeably until it doesn't suit their narrative. She even ironically uses the word "sexism" at the end there.

...

>OP here.
We know. We can tell by the ID, you fucking newfag.

>norms that have been shaped by our patriarchal society
You mean nature? Pretty sure that's nature, since men can't get pregnant and be vulnerable for almost a year.

>men would spend more time with kids and be stay at home dads
There's no way to tell. Many single lads don't have children, so while they have more free time there's a good chance they'll invest it in themselves, by working longer hours and making more money for example.

>men would take smaller jobs because wives could be out working, if men and women were equal
Men take bigger jobs, more jobs and some jobs on the side out of the taxman's sight, while women slave away behind the desk pretending they'd rather not do something else, like having children and taking care of them.

>more patriarchy
More nature.

>exact same positions yielding wage discrepancies
There's this thing where you get rated on a regular basis, and the outcome of the rating determines whether you get a raise or not. It makes economical sense not to give someone a raise unless they're really worth investing in some more, or ask for it and prove themselves worth that investment.
Women categorically neglect this bartering of wages, so by default their payraises aren't as frequent nor are they as high as those of men.

>pushed on women by patriarchy
Pushed on women by nature. Men are competitive, women are protective. Difference.

>feminism is about closing gaps and removing gender norms and stereotypes and if you aren't a feminist you can't say what it is or isn't
If feminism is a thought set in stone, I can most certainly tell you what it is or isn't.
If it isn't, I can define it as an anti-white-male tyranny that is destroying civilisation and must be met with force lest we seek collective cultural suicide.
The good thing about this shocking proposition is that there's evidence to support it, and it perfectly matches up with your definition of feminism.

Please forward this rant of mine

>I will post links later from a seminar I attended about closing the wage gap.

ahahahahaha

These people won't be happy until society doesn't exist and all we have is chaos. I think a lot of them just want civilization to die because they want themselves to die. I know the type, I went to liberal arts college.

In pic related She also said this about the workplace. And this about modern feminism " if you believe that feminism is bad(which I don't because to me, it's just like the Islamist extremists- a few people who are not reflective of the whole) then you should do what you can to change that and redefine feminism back to what it originally was. Remind extreme feminists that man hating isn't part of the feminist agenda."

Like I said it's an unfalsifiable religious theory. Everything is patriarchy. Just call her a religious zealot and move on.

>Assigned identity is oppression. Assigned identity is the identity that’s assigned to you by the power structure – the patriarchy. The only reason the patriarchy assigns you a status is to oppress you. And so the language that frees you from that status is revolutionary language. So, as an example of revolutionary language, we’re going to blow out the gender identity categories, because the concept of woman is oppressive. The anti-patriarchy philosophy is predicated on the idea that all social structures are oppressive, and not much more than that. Then to assault the structure is to question its categorical schemes at every possible level of analysis. And the most fundamental one that the anti-patriarchy radicals have come up with is gender. It’s a piece of identity that children usually pick up on around two – it’s pretty fundamental. You could argue that there isn’t anything more fundamental. Though, I don’t know of anything that’s more fundamental, more basic, and that would have been regarded as more unquestionable, even five years ago.

>Do you view social justice culture as a threat to democracy, and why?

>Absolutely. There’s nothing about the PC authoritarian types that has any gratitude for any institutions. They have a term – patriarchy. It’s all-encompassing. It means that everything our society is, is corrupt. There’s no line, they mean everything. Go online, go look at ten women’s studies websites. Pick them at random. Read them. They say ‘western civilization is a corrupt patriarchy right down to the goddamned core. We have to overthrow it.’

>Which means democracy, which means liberalism, which means human rights.

>It means the whole thing. The whole edifice. And what do they compare it to? Utopia. Why do you think the feminists would go after Ayaan Hirsi Ali? She’s a hero, that woman. She’s from Somalia. She grew up in a very oppressive patriarchy – a real one. She escaped from an arranged marriage, and moved to Holland and she fell in love with Holland. Two things really struck her initially before she went to university and become a student of the Enlightenment. Number one – she would stand where there was public transport, and a digital sign would say when the public transport was going to arrive, and it would arrive exactly when it said it was going to. It was unbelievable to her. And the other thing she couldn’t believe was that police would help you. You know you’re in a civilized country when the police don’t just rape you and steal everything you have. The radical left people don’t give a damn about any of that.

>I don’t think women were discriminated against, I think that’s an appalling argument. First of all, do you know how much money people lived on in 1885 in 2010 dollars? One dollar a day. The first thing we’ll establish is that life sucked for everyone. You didn’t live very long. If you were female you were pregnant almost all the time, and you were worn out and half dead by the time you were 45. Men worked under abysmal conditions that we can’t even imagine. When George Orwell wrote The Road to Wigan Pier, the coal miners he studied walked to work for two miles underground hunched over before they started their shift. Then they walked back. [Orwell] said he couldn’t walk 200 yards in one of those tunnels without cramping up so bad he couldn’t even stand up. Those guys were toothless by 25, and done by 45. Life before the 20th century for most people was brutal beyond comparison. The idea that women were an oppressed minority under those conditions is insane. People worked 16 hours a day hand to mouth. My grandmother was a farmer’s wife in Saskatchewan. She showed me a picture of the firewood she chopped before winter. They lived in a log cabin that was not quite as big as the first floor of this house. And the woodpile that she chopped was three times as long, and just as high. And that’s what she did in her spare time because she was also cooking for a threshing crew, taking care of her four kids, working on other people’s farms as a maid, and taking care of the animals.

>Then in the 20th century, people got rich enough that some women were able to work outside the home. That started in the 1920s, and really accelerated up through World War II because women were pulled into factories while the men went off to war. The men fought, and died, and that’s pretty much the history of humanity. And then in the 50s, when Betty Friedan started to whine about the plight of women, it’s like, the soldiers came home from the war, everyone started a family, the women pulled in from the factories because they wanted to have kids, and that’s when they got all oppressed. There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It’s completely insane to assume that anything like that could’ve possibly occurred. And the feminists think they produced a revolution in the 1960s that freed women. What freed women was the pill, and we’ll see how that works out. There’s some evidence that women on the pill don’t like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman’s preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren’t on the pill like wide-jawed men when they’re ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they’re not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.

>ow groups that were discriminated against. What are you going to do about it? The only societies that are not slave societies are western enlightenment democracies. That’s it. Compared to utopia, it sucks. But compared to everywhere else – people don’t emigrate to the Middle East to live there, and there’s good reason for that.

The other thing is to do a multi-variate analysis. For example, if we wanted to predict long-term life success in western countries the two best predictors are intelligence and conscientiousness. Intelligent people get there first, and conscientious people work hard. It accounts for about 30 percent of the variance in long-term life success. There’s no discrimination there, it’s just competence. What about women and the glass ceiling? That’s a lot more complicated than it looks. For example, I’ve dealt with big law firms for years. They can’t keep their women. All the big law firms lose all their women in their thirties. Do you know why? It’s easy. Women mate across and up the dominance hierarchy, so women in big law firms who are over 30 who are married, maybe they’re making $300,000 per year. So are their partners. They don’t need to make $600,000 per year. If you want to make $300,000 per year as a lawyer, here’s your life: you work 60-80 hours a week flat out, and you’re on-call. If your Japanese client calls you at 3:00 on a Sunday morning, your answer is ‘yes, I’ll do that right now’ because they’re paying you $750 an hour. These women are high in conscientiousness, great students, brilliant in law school, and stellar in their articling. Then they make partner, and they think ‘what the fuck am I working 80 hours a week for?’ because that’s what sane people think.

Men and women aren't equal, never were equal, and never will be equal. Any reasonable person can look at another human being and see differences, regardless of skin color and gender, that make them unequal.

> So it’s all men who are at the absolute pinnacle of professions. But it’s not all men, it’s this tiny percentage of weird men. They’ve got IQs of 145 or higher, and they’re insanely competitive and hard-working. It doesn’t matter where you put someone like that, they’ll work 80 hours a week. The reason men do that more than women, is that status makes men sexually attractive. Men are driven by status – both biologically and culturally – in a way that women aren’t. So the real issue, when you look at these positions and thinking ‘oh, these are wonderful, luxurious positions of plenitude and relaxation’. That’s rubbish. Those people work so hard that it’s almost unimaginable. Most people not only can’t do that, but there isn’t even a chance that they’d want to. Most women hit partner in their 30s. The funny thing is when you’re in your thirties is that that’s when you really start to have to have your own life. When you’re 18, you’re just like every other knob-headed eighteen-year old, you’re all the same. By the time you’re thirty, you have enough idiosyncratic experience to sort of carve your own life, and most people realize ‘well, I don’t want to work 80 hours a week.’ They want to have a family, and they’re out of time. And then when they have a family, they discover that to have a child – it’s not a generic baby, it’s a new person in your family. That new person is THE most important thing to you. Period. So women they hit that, they get two kids and they think ‘I’m only going to have little kids for five years, you think I’m going to go work for eighty hours a week? To make money I don’t need? Doing something I don’t like? Or am I going to spend time with my kids?’ They can’t keep women in law – there’s no goddamned glass ceiling. The legal profession is desperate to keep qualified people because they don’t have enough.

They haul them in from anywhere – especially the women who are not only good lawyers, but who can also generate business. That’s just one dirty little secret about the difference in power structures between men and women. Men do almost all the dangerous jobs, men work outside, men are far more likely to move than women are. So, if you look, if you break down the statistics in terms of wage differential, if you equate for the other factors, young women make more money than young men. The whole “women make $0.70 for every dollar a man makes” is such a lie. Men-run small businesses make way more money than female-run small businesses. Why? Because females start small businesses when they have kids, when they’re at home, so the business is just part time. So that’s why they don’t make as much money. It’s got nothing to do with prejudice, it’s got everything to do with choice. So these arguments that people make about prejudice are not even out of tribal psychology yet.

>We’ve made unbelievable advances in terms of levelling the playing field, and a lot of that was due to pure capitalist greed. In capitalist societies, people are desperate for talent. If they have to put up with women and minorities, generally they will. Transformations are happening so fast that there’s nothing you can do to make them go faster. Everybody’s yelling ‘prejudice’ – it’s a one-stop shop for every explanation. Why is society like this? Prejudice. Why is it like that? Prejudice. There’s no thinking involved at all, no multi-variate analysis. It’s reprehensible. Warren Farrell wrote the book Why Men Earn More. He was a worker for the National Organization of Women in New York before he wrote the book. He actually wrote the book, at least in principle, for his daughters, because he wanted to help guide them to higher status. He did a multi-variate analysis. He went and looked, and learned more. He found that men do the high paying trades jobs, they’re dangerous, they’re outside, they’re doing hard, physical work. Then there’s the other reasons as well. There’s discrimination for sure, but it counts for maybe ten percent of the variance in success.

...

And what shapes gender norms? *gasp* biology

>If women stopped having children, what would happen to our country?
Fair enough
>Ask China, their in a similar situation
constanza.jpg

There is no scientific base for the claim that men and women are equal. If you want to come from an honest right wing base that's all you need to state. Equality is a myth and there's nothing inherently beneficial with closing the pay gap.