@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Sexism is certainly rampant in games (all media, really), but this Dead Island Riptide thing is just absurd at this point.

It was dumb, and ill advised. I also at no point was confused by what it was supposed to be - a zombie torso in sexy beach attire, because a) I assume "Riptide" is another tropical themed game, and because b) they assumed male gamers would like the boobs.

I AM confused as to why this particular instance of sexual immaturity marketed towards gamers is a national issue, but, say, all of the other games that feature females with ridiculous proportions are not. Why no articles about the latest Dead or Alive game?

The Riptide thing is an easy target, because not only did it play into the usual sexual immaturity tropes the "gamer" community is faced with, it was also just a dumb object to begin with. Nobody wants an obtuse bloody torso to proudly display on their bookcase.

I'm going to do my best to contribute as much to this conversation as everyone else,

So First here is an important public service message to help out the ladies argument.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

And now here is a well thought out and very serious opinion on one possibility why women still make less $$$ than men.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

I think I have provided at least as much well thought out commentary on this issue as anyone else in this thread,

Except maybe....

@ReaganStein said:

"Please don't use my sexy cleavage shot that I myself use on my public Twitter profile to illustrate my complaints about sexy cleavage statues. Because that might make me look like a hypocrite."

LOL

@Milkman said:

@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?

It's irrelevant because the torso is not sexist. Even if I thought it was, latching onto the fact that I find the "privilege" ideology to be dumb is only dragging out this off-topic argument about feminism.

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

@Archaen said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Yes, it's basically the same explanation. Block's quote is more succinct because it belongs to an article about a broader subject.

@Milkman said:

@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?

A ton of the shit on that list is just fucking stupid..

"My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring."

How the fuck is this a male privilege, that's a persons fashion decision.

"As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often."

I don't even know what the fuck this is?

The list is full of absolutely stupid shit that is either not true, or just fucking dumb.

@Coombs: You. I want to marry you.

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Also from the article: "The Department of Labor’s Time Use Survey, for example, finds that the average full-time working man spends 8.14 hours a day on the job, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman. Employees who work more likely earn more." Men also work more days/months/years through their lifetime due to prioritizing child-rearing.

The "pay gap" has been thoroughly explained and debunked. At least in the U.S.

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Yes, it's basically the same explanation. Block's quote is more succinct because it belongs to an article about a broader subject.

They're both equally terrible explanations, that's for sure.

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

@Missacre said:

@august: @august said:

@Dezztroy said:

From my experience, there are quite a few women with fake breasts wearing bikinis at tropical locations. I don't see what's sexist about it.

It's a fucking headless mutilated corpse for you to display in your home.

That it is. Still how is it sexist?

I dont know if someone posted it before but i will, it's from kotaku but is basicly a copy/paste from a forbes article

http://kotaku.com/5977427/ea-exec-says-blaming-sexism-is-a-cop-out-and-doesnt-explain-why-women-arent-in-more-gaming-jobs

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2013/01/18/women-and-video-gamings-dirty-little-secrets/

Aslo gj on doing 2k+ post in 2 day-ish

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

The fact the man won a Nobel Prize does not invalidate another fact: Austrian economics is bunk and anything that comes out of a Austrian-school-of-thought economist's mouth is seriously suspect. Anyway, thanks for addressing my actual criticisms alongside addressing my footnote. I will take it as granted that you concede your point. Or don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than parrot a libertarian.

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

That is simply not true. Men have an average of two years seniority on the equivalent job, which will produce raises that the woman will not have until two years later. Men also work more hours per week on the equivalent job and therefore have higher paychecks even when making the same amount per hour. It is a fact that when you compare women and men who are single and have not raised children their current and lifetime earnings are basically identical. Women are paid less because of the fields they choose to go into, they hold will work more jobs in their lifetime therefore losing seniority and associated pay raises, and they work less hours and less years overall due to valuing child-rearing over income.

This "pay gap" concept is a myth. At one time it was true but it isn't now.

this is why dead island riptide will sell

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

That is simply not true. Men have an average of two years seniority on the equivalent job, which will produce raises that the woman will not have until two years later. Men also work more hours per week on the equivalent job and therefore have higher paychecks even when making the same amount per hour. It is a fact that when you compare women and men who are single and have not raised children their current and lifetime earnings are basically identical. Women are paid less because of the fields they choose to go into, they hold will work more jobs in their lifetime therefore losing seniority and associated pay raises, and they work less hours and less years overall due to valuing child-rearing over income.

This "pay gap" concept is a myth. At one time it was true but it isn't now.

Did you even check the URL I posted? Women who work the same jobs as men, for the same hours, still lag behind in pay.

@jimmyfenix said:

this is why dead island riptide will sell

Yes, we're all going to buy a sequel to a shitty game because someone wrote an article about it.

IDK.. i like boobs! so much so i got married so i could enjoy my very own big boobies. Unfortunatley this was some time ago and they have now gone a bit saggy

I still play with them from time to time and they still do bounce up and down which is good.

So be proud boobs you do a great job and keep up (as long as u can) the good work ( . ) ( . )

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

The fact the man won a Nobel Prize does not invalidate another fact: Austrian economics is bunk and anything that comes out of a Austrian-school-of-thought economist's mouth is seriously suspect. Anyway, thanks for addressing my actual criticisms alongside addressing my footnote. I will take it as granted that you concede your point. Or don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than parrot a libertarian.

You are angry and misreading two simple paragraphs. Why bother? Most of your arguments are ad hominem attacks anyway.

lets get a doctors opinion on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKWpQDBvBbM

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

@Judakel said:

Did you even check the URL I posted? Women who work the same jobs as men, for the same hours, still lag behind in pay.

Yes I did and no they do not. You are misreading the statistics. The statistics in your article use "median income" which if you had read the Forbes article you would know is misleading because it does not take into account several factors, including that women work less per hour than men.

Here is another article for you to read about that explains why the statistics you linked to are incorrect: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

The fact the man won a Nobel Prize does not invalidate another fact: Austrian economics is bunk and anything that comes out of a Austrian-school-of-thought economist's mouth is seriously suspect. Anyway, thanks for addressing my actual criticisms alongside addressing my footnote. I will take it as granted that you concede your point. Or don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than parrot a libertarian.

You are angry and misreading two simple paragraphs. Why bother? Most of your arguments are ad hominem attacks anyway.

Wow, my response was not an ad hominem attack in its entirety and I did not misread your quote. Kindly point out what I misread and realize that only the footnote was an ad hominem attack. I am allowed one. He is an Austrian school economist.

@Sil3n7 said:

You know Patrick, if you don't like a particular games stance on women, don't buy that game. Let the market decide if they agree with your values.

When it comes down to it though I'm going to guess you will play "Sexist murder simulator 2013" like all of us. In fact, why don't you asks these women if they change their game buying habits based on this? If not, their criticism rings hollow.

You want to talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

This.

@PillClinton said:

So this must be the most commented thing on GB now, right? Patty just keeps on breakin' records!

@CarlosTheDwarf said:

@ReaganStein said:

"Please don't use my sexy cleavage shot that I myself use on my public Twitter profile to illustrate my complaints about sexy cleavage statues. Because that might make me look like a hypocrite."

LOL

Wow, that's fuckin' ridiculous. Just... the whole thing, wow.

Patrick the White Knight strikes again.

That is a perfect example why this opinion piece is a waste of time.

@Nettacki: Maybe I'm as pissed off as I am about it because I live in Melbourne (same city Jill was murdered in) but I was completely on board with these women until I read that. I think sexism in games is pervasive and disgusting but using someone's horrible death to score points is abhorrent. All she's succeeded in doing is pissing a bunch of people off and obfuscating the real issues here.

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:shed for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

First, let's watch our language, because we're getting into an area of discussion where the language will actually matter. Not for politically correct reasons, but because the rhetoric will actually shape the discourse. What I am implying is that women should not be punished for performing a task necessary to the continuation of our species. Private entrepreneurs should value skilled labor enough to recognize that raising children is a necessary aspect of a functioning society and should not punish their workers for doing so. THIS GOES BOTH WAYS. If the man is raising the child, he should be accounted for just like the woman. Although quite clearly a woman would have to take some time off in order to birth the child.

These women are not "choosing" not to work. If it is a choice, then I pray to God they do because it is about as necessary a task as one can imagine. You speak of this necessary task as if it were truly an option for the survival of our species. Ridiculous.

While the very notion that parts of the workforce should be paid even as they are not working for 2 years at a time may seem abhorrent to your capitalist sensibilities, understand that it is the ONLY ethical and logically sound option. To suggest women should take a hit in their wallets because they "choose" to raise a child, a task that is arguably more difficult than just about any modern job, is unethical. Let's also remember that it is not just a hit to their wallet, but their financial independence and status in a society that judges you according to such parameters. To suggest that they forego child-bearing and that no one (man or woman) take time off to raise a child is illogical. You really have no choice here.

If a business cannot afford to pay someone as they raise their child, then equal government support through higher taxation of said business-owners is always an option. Oh, and before you say anything, yes, it is viable.

What is really sad is that none of what we say in this thread matters. When Jeff and the rest of the crew see it, they will dismiss it as internet scumbags. Because we disagree with this sensationalist bullshit being passed off as news.

I guess it's sort of pointless to argue about it anymore, but I think the thing to do is for those who disagree with Patrick to ignore everything he puts up from now on. If there are enough people who feel the same someone is bound to notice the drop in traffic. To me, he has absolutely no credibility and I have no interest in anything else he has to say.

@JoshyLee said:

What is really sad is that none of what we say in this thread matters. When Jeff and the rest of the crew see it, they will dismiss it as internet scumbags. Because we disagree with this sensationalist bullshit being passed off as news.

The apathetic man's reward.

Sex sells simple as that, The fact that this is for a game about zombies means the bloodied and mutilated part fits

And if you don't believe that you yourself are a pervert please take this quick test.....

@Milkman said:

@Krullban: Even if a couple are a stretch, how can you sit there and tell me that the vast majority of that list isn't true?

I've become bored and don't want to go anymore. But yes, the majority of things on the list are stupid.

@Judakel said:

First, let's watch our language, because we're getting into an area of discussion where the language will actually matter. Not for politically correct reasons, but because the rhetoric will actually shape the discourse. What I am implying is that women should not be punished for performing a necessary task to continuation of our species. Private entrepreneurs should value skilled labor enough to recognize that raising children is a necessary aspect of a functioning society and should not punish their workers for doing so. THIS GOES BOTH WAYS. If the man is raising the child, he should be paid as much as the woman. Although quite clearly a woman would have to take some time off in order to birth the child.

These women are not "choosing" not to work. If it is a choice, then I pray to God they do because it is about as necessary a task as one can imagine. You speak of this necessary task as if it were truly an option for the survival of our species. Ridiculous.

While the very notion that parts of the workforce should be paid even as they are not working for 2 years at a time may seem abhorrent to your capitalist sensibilities, understand that it is the ONLY ethical and logically sound option. To suggest women should take a hit in their wallets because they "choose" to raise a child, a task that is arguably more difficult than just about any modern job, is unethical. To suggest that they forego child-bearing and that no one (man or woman) take time off to raise a child is illogical. You really have no choice here.

If a business cannot afford to pay someone as they raise their child, then equal government support through higher taxation of said business-owners is always an option. Oh, and before you say anything, yes, it is viable.

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

I see we have entered the 'dueling sources' phase of the thread. There are many many opinion pieces out there on either side, but a good place to start is Wikipedia. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

There's been a lot of research done on this. It's worth looking up - there are many research links in this article.

My two cents: the gender gap is real. It hasn't been debunked, any more than 'global warming' has been debunked.

@Coombs: Numbers 4 and 6 are my favorite.

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

@Judakel said:

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Literally nobody even said that.

@Judakel said:

Wow, my response was not an ad hominem attack in its entirety and I did not misread your quote. Kindly point out what I misread and realize that only the footnote was an ad hominem attack. I am allowed one. He is an Austrian school economist.

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

My stance is still, "what was the point? Why would you want this?"

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

@Krullban said:

@Judakel said:

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Literally nobody even said that.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

Check last page.